140 réponses à ce sujet

[Stigmatizer N7]

AP sucked monkey balls

[Ecael]

Leinadi wrote...

Drasill wrote...

BioWare + Obsidian + CD Projekt RED

Imagine the possibilities...

Nah, better to keep them separate and receive different types of games. And besides, too many cooks...

If Fallout: New Vegas isn't successful, Obsidian's going to be in big trouble. Also, CD Projekt RED already has people complaining about the focus on action on their forums:

Witcher 2 = Arcade "RPG"?

The Witcher 2 turning into an action RPG? Uh-oh. Game ruined.

Modifié par Ecael, 10 juillet 2010 - 07:49 .

[Grand_Commander13]

In Exile wrote...

This becomes contrived very fast. Alpha Protocol always had an end mission one of two choices, and it always had to be one of two.

Taipei, while you had the one of two choices, also gave you a very important choice whether or not to kill Omen Deng.  That choice is even more important than the one you made before the level, actually.

Moscow is just crazy with the choices.  On Brayko's mission you get to choose "one objective, the other, or if you're awesome then both."  You can kill Brayko or spare him, but if you kill him too fast Moscow finishes up.  If you let him live for at least a little while you get another mission where you can make a deal with Surkov, kill him, or make him work for you.  Not quite so simplistic as a decades-older, cynical you making special effort to show you how the world of espionage works.

[AllThatJazz]

I don't think AP was a terrible game - a flawed game, to be sure, particularly since the bar is set so high these days. But I loved it anyway. A game where you have to stand by the consequences of your decisions, which can be pretty extreme, in gaming terms. Rescue a woman you care about (or are sleeping with, anyway), or save the lives of innocent bystanders. No way to do both. Great! I actually liked the checkpoint system for this reason - I couldn't easily just reload and take the other path to see which one I preferred (which I know I would have done had the option been available, because I am weak). Not suggesting DA2 goes down this route, however.



Also liked that there was no morality system in AP - decisions were just that, decisions. Choosing one thing or the other didn't make Thorton a jerk or a saint, just a guy with a really tough job to do.



So yeah, I think Bio could stand to learn from Obsidian when it comes to offering choices that have a more than purely cosmetic impact on the gameworld. Just, you know, also by keeping on doing all things Bio does best. Oh, and Bio (story & characters) + Obsidian (dialogue + choices) + Beth (exploration) = BEST DAY EVER.

[Cailean]

rogue warrior is worse than alpha protocol. however, AP indeed sucked. i want ME 3! >=- (

[Unit-Alpha]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

virumor wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Choices, choices everywhere and not a single decision to be made.

Welcome to BioWare games.

Not just BioWare games, but every other RPG out there.  Every RPG ever made, even the old-fashioned greats like BG and Fallout, is built around the illusion of choice cast over tight plot rails.  Except for maybe Alpha Protocol, or arguably even KOTOR 2.  Which, like most of Obsidian's games, had wonderful ideas...and ridiculously patchy implementation.  I'm having a hard time deciding whether I prefer a more innovative game with obvious design flaws (and lots of 'em) or a less innovative and polished one like DA:O.  Polish and clean game design are critical to enjoying a game.

Basically, I'm just holding out for BioWare and Obsidian to collaborate on a project, kinda like BioWare and Black Isle back in the Infinity Engine days.  That would be a game to end all games, a singularity of RPG AWESOME.  

Bioware and Obsidian? I'd say Bioware and Bethesda. Obsidian hasn't made a truly good game in quite some time. KOTOR 2 was unfinished, and AP was clunky, even with a good decision system.

[HoonDing]

Ecael wrote...

The Witcher 2 turning into an action RPG? Uh-oh. Game ruined.

"Turning" into an action RPG? The first Witcher was already one. The most butthurt is about plans to include QTE during combat.

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Taipei, while you had the one of two choices, also gave you a very important choice whether or not to kill Omen Deng. That choice is even more important than the one you made before the level, actually.

Omen Deng matters as a choice, but it's the same binary kill or don't kill that you have in Saudi Arabia, Rome, and Moscow. He's just the end-game survival choice for the level.

Let's review some choices though: which information to decrypt with Ronald Sung. Global stability vs. individual lives choice. This is the same as Rome: stability through saving many lives, or one particular individual life. Which is the same choice on repeated in Moscow over and over: [x] or [iy], and you can't have both.

Moscow is just crazy with the choices.  On Brayko's mission you get to choose "one objective, the other, or if you're awesome then both."  You can kill Brayko or spare him, but if you kill him too fast Moscow finishes up.  If you let him live for at least a little while you get another mission where you can make a deal with Surkov, kill him, or make him work for you.  Not quite so simplistic as a decades-older, cynical you making special effort to show you how the world of espionage works.

Brayko doesn't count at all. It's "lose content if you're a sociopath" and "another mission if you're not a sociopath". Letting Brayko live or die has no real impact in the story; it's when you kill him that matters, and it's petty much Standard Rule of Videogames ™ that if you kill someone before listening to their dialogue, you're just choosing to miss out on content.

But let's look at other choices: Brayko: get Halbech or save collaborator. When you enter the mansion via Albatross: find Brayko's location or location of Halbech data.

It's always one or the other.

[Ecael]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

virumor wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Choices, choices everywhere and not a single decision to be made.

Welcome to BioWare games.

Not just BioWare games, but every other RPG out there.  Every RPG ever made, even the old-fashioned greats like BG and Fallout, is built around the illusion of choice cast over tight plot rails.  Except for maybe Alpha Protocol, or arguably even KOTOR 2.  Which, like most of Obsidian's games, had wonderful ideas...and ridiculously patchy implementation.  I'm having a hard time deciding whether I prefer a more innovative game with obvious design flaws (and lots of 'em) or a less innovative and polished one like DA:O.  Polish and clean game design are critical to enjoying a game.

Basically, I'm just holding out for BioWare and Obsidian to collaborate on a project, kinda like BioWare and Black Isle back in the Infinity Engine days.  That would be a game to end all games, a singularity of RPG AWESOME.  

Bioware and Obsidian? I'd say Bioware and Bethesda. Obsidian hasn't made a truly good game in quite some time. KOTOR 2 was unfinished, and AP was clunky, even with a good decision system.

Bethesda, as a subsidiary of ZeniMax Media, mostly develops and publishes shooters now.

[AllThatJazz]

Ecael wrote: 'If Fallout: New Vegas isn't successful, Obsidian's going to be in big trouble'.



Luckily, I can't see Fallout:NV bombing. Gamebryo still looks good enough to pass muster (even if only just), and judging from my (admittedly limited) lurkings on the Bethsoft forums, there's still a helluva lot of interest in Fallout. Plus, Obs shouldn't suffer too much from their most regular complaint 'lack of polish', when they're just having to slightly polish someone else's engine ... did that sound rude?



Fingers crossed anyway, would hate to see Obsidian go down. The pan, that is. x

[Ecael]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Ecael wrote: 'If Fallout: New Vegas isn't successful, Obsidian's going to be in big trouble'.

Luckily, I can't see Fallout:NV bombing. Gamebryo still looks good enough to pass muster (even if only just), and judging from my (admittedly limited) lurkings on the Bethsoft forums, there's still a helluva lot of interest in Fallout. Plus, Obs shouldn't suffer too much from their most regular complaint 'lack of polish', when they're just having to slightly polish someone else's engine ... did that sound rude?

Fingers crossed anyway, would hate to see Obsidian go down. The pan, that is. x

Well, it is Fallout, after all.

Obsidian would be better off being absorbed by EA so they could use BioWare's resources, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be against that.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ecael wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

virumor wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Choices, choices everywhere and not a single decision to be made.

Welcome to BioWare games.

Not just BioWare games, but every other RPG out there.  Every RPG ever made, even the old-fashioned greats like BG and Fallout, is built around the illusion of choice cast over tight plot rails.  Except for maybe Alpha Protocol, or arguably even KOTOR 2.  Which, like most of Obsidian's games, had wonderful ideas...and ridiculously patchy implementation.  I'm having a hard time deciding whether I prefer a more innovative game with obvious design flaws (and lots of 'em) or a less innovative and polished one like DA:O.  Polish and clean game design are critical to enjoying a game.

Basically, I'm just holding out for BioWare and Obsidian to collaborate on a project, kinda like BioWare and Black Isle back in the Infinity Engine days.  That would be a game to end all games, a singularity of RPG AWESOME.  

Bioware and Obsidian? I'd say Bioware and Bethesda. Obsidian hasn't made a truly good game in quite some time. KOTOR 2 was unfinished, and AP was clunky, even with a good decision system.

Bethesda, as a subsidiary of ZeniMax Media, mostly develops and publishes shooters now.

Please research before you talk. It makes you sound ignorant. Bethesda (the publishing branch) and Bethesda Game Studios are entirely seperate. BGS is RPG only; heard of FO3 or Oblivion? Bethesda hasn't developed a single shooter ever (not counting FO3). Please research next time.

Edit: Let me make it more clear before you try to pounce on this; Bethesda (the publisher) is just a cover name for Zenimax, which owns id (the aforementioned shooters) and several other subsidiaries. Zenimax basically uses the Bethesda name as a publishing name due to the lack of knowledge of Zenimax.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 10 juillet 2010 - 08:21 .

[Leinadi]

[But let's look at other choices: Brayko: get Halbech or save collaborator. When you enter the mansion via Albatross: find Brayko's location or location of Halbech data.

It's always one or the other.

With the right skills or class, you can have both in those two situations.

Brayko doesn't count at all. It's "lose content if you're a sociopath" and "another mission if you're not a sociopath". Letting Brayko live or die has no real impact in the story; it's when you kill him that matters, and it's petty much Standard Rule of Videogames ™ that if you kill someone before listening to their dialogue, you're just choosing to miss out on content.

And most story-heavy games wouldn't even offer the choice in the first place, and definitely not risk the player failing to obtain an important piece of info.

Modifié par Leinadi, 10 juillet 2010 - 08:21 .

[Ecael]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Please research before you talk. It makes you sound ignorant. Bethesda (the publishing branch) and Bethesda Game Studios are entirely seperate. BGS is RPG only; heard of FO3 or Oblivion? Bethesda hasn't developed a single shooter ever (not counting FO3). Please research next time.

Yes, I heard of Fallout 3 and Oblivion, the two games released 2-4 years ago that was constantly compared to Fallout 1/2 (Black Isle Studios) and Daggerfall (Bethesda's own creation) for not being RPG enough.

That sounds rather familiar, actually...

[AllThatJazz]

Didn't BGS do 'Wet' and 'Brink' and 'Rogue Warrior' as well? Don't think they are RPGs but could be wrong.



Regardless, Ecael, I agree with you. While I love the idea of the Indie game studio bravely going up against the might of the huge faceless corporations, in practical terms I think its kind of a fast track to liquidation, these days. Not helped by poor sales of their titles, which in turn is not helped by reviewers/gamers having the same expectations as they would of a studio with a lot more resources. They might have been able to pull AP around with EA's resources at their back, who knows? Sigh.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ecael wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Please research before you talk. It makes you sound ignorant. Bethesda (the publishing branch) and Bethesda Game Studios are entirely seperate. BGS is RPG only; heard of FO3 or Oblivion? Bethesda hasn't developed a single shooter ever (not counting FO3). Please research next time.

Yes, I heard of Fallout 3 and Oblivion, the two games released 2-4 years ago that was constantly compared to Fallout 1/2 (Black Isle Studios) and Daggerfall (Bethesda's own creation) for not being RPG enough.

That sounds rather familiar, actually...

Oh, yes, that reminds me as well...of Mass Effect 2. Wait, and Dragon Age was basically level based. There was no freedom. Let me ask you, have you played either (FO3 or Oblivion)?

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 10 juillet 2010 - 08:28 .

[Unit-Alpha]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Didn't BGS do 'Wet' and 'Brink' and 'Rogue Warrior' as well? Don't think they are RPGs but could be wrong.

Regardless, Ecael, I agree with you. While I love the idea of the Indie game studio bravely going up against the might of the huge faceless corporations, in practical terms I think its kind of a fast track to liquidation, these days. Not helped by poor sales of their titles, which in turn is not helped by reviewers/gamers having the same expectations as they would of a studio with a lot more resources. They might have been able to pull AP around with EA's resources at their back, who knows? Sigh.

Uh, wrong. All those titles were published by Bethesda, not made by BGS. Jesus, I can't understand why this simple concept is so hard for people to understand.

[Ecael]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Please research before you talk. It makes you sound ignorant. Bethesda (the publishing branch) and Bethesda Game Studios are entirely seperate. BGS is RPG only; heard of FO3 or Oblivion? Bethesda hasn't developed a single shooter ever (not counting FO3). Please research next time.

Yes, I heard of Fallout 3 and Oblivion, the two games released 2-4 years ago that was constantly compared to Fallout 1/2 (Black Isle Studios) and Daggerfall (Bethesda's own creation) for not being RPG enough.

That sounds rather familiar, actually...

Oh, yes, that reminds me as well...of Mass Effect 2. Wait, and Dragon Age was basically level based. There was no freedom. Let me ask you, have you played either?

Nope. I just read the general pessimism on the relevant forums, because they have to be correct instead of the critical acclaim, right?

Right?



I try not to spend too much money on video games, and last year I was trying to decide whether to buy Mass Effect 1 or Fallout 3 on Steam.

I ended up buying Mass Effect 1 since it was selling for $20 (Fallout 3 still at around $50-60), and I'm glad I did.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ecael wrote...

Nope. I just read the general pessimism on the relevant forums, because they have to be correct instead of the critical acclaim, right?

Right?



I try not to spend too much money on video games, and last year I was trying to decide whether to buy Mass Effect 1 or Fallout 3 on Steam.

I ended up buying Mass Effect 1 since it was selling for $20 (Fallout 3 still at around $50-60), and I'm glad I did.

Um, yes, that  makes sense. What forums? Here? Because for what I've seen, Biofanboys constantly rag on Bethesda's games, while on the Bethesda forums they all see the merits in Bioware's games. Perhaps you should play the games before attacking them. Google Cooper Lawrence and Mass Effect. That's what you're doing to Bethesda's games.

Let me make this crystal clear. I adore Mass Effect 1 and 2 and I'd say they are in my top 3 of all time. However, I deespise when people attack Bethesda and blame the Rogue Warrior and WET fiascos on their dev teams. Or when they claim that FO3 and Oblivion are not RPGs.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 10 juillet 2010 - 08:44 .

[Ecael]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Um, yes, that  makes sense. What forums? Here? Because for what I've seen, Biofanboys constantly rag on Bethesda's games, while on the Bethesda forums they all see the merits in Bioware's games. Perhaps you should play the games before attacking them. Google Cooper Lawrence and Mass Effect. That's what you're doing to Bethesda's games.

Did the sarcasm just fly over your head? At what point did I attack or insult Bethesda?

[fchopin]

Ecael wrote...

I ended up buying Mass Effect 1 since it was selling for $20 (Fallout 3 still at around $50-60), and I'm glad I did.

I am afraid that you have to play the games before you criticize them or it is all hearsay.

[AllThatJazz]

I've played both. *Disclaimer* What follows is obviously a personal opinion, and not intended as an attack on anyone else's views. I realise I am now off-topic, and this will be my only such post.



I really didn't like Oblivion. The RP'ing was mostly cosmetic - what do I look like? What do I clobber things with? I don't recall a single character who I thought was memorable, I wanted to kill myself by the time I got through the 6th Oblivion Gate (all the same, yes I know they are optional, not the point), and not a single decision I made mattered even remotely. Not that I remember having to make any major decisions anyway. The story was average at best, trite and completely unmemorable at worst. It was very pretty, and I sank a fair few hours into exploring the world (hence my earlier comment). Once I got bored with doing this, it was game over.



F3 - better, much better. A very atmospheric game, and some superb quests which appeared to offer some real choices (Do I blow up Megaton or not? being the main one I think). Nonetheless, this still seemed to have remarkably little impact on the gameworld. I just blew up a town! Somebody say something! And Moira, please have a little self-respect. I just turned you into a ghoul, please do not continue to want to use me as your research assistant! Ultimately, the RP again seemed cosmetic, though better done. I am aware that Choice in CRPGs is an illusion, but I like that illusion to have a little depth.

[AllThatJazz]

And that was NOT meant as a 'rag' on Bethsoft. I own both 360 and PC GoTY editions of Fallout 3, so obviously I like it. Very much, actually.

[Ecael]

fchopin wrote...

Ecael wrote...

I ended up buying Mass Effect 1 since it was selling for $20 (Fallout 3 still at around $50-60), and I'm glad I did.

I am afraid that you have to play the games before you criticize them or it is all hearsay.

Read my post above. I think my point was missed. Otherwise I'd be saying "You haven't played enough WRPGs, MMORPGs, JRPGs and PnPRPGs before you can define RPG!" instead of going by an objective definition.

I've also played through Mass Effect 1 and 2 about 9 times each. Should I say that everyone else should too before they're allowed to criticize either of them?

[AllThatJazz]

And Unit-Alpha, there is really no need to be so rude. I clearly do not spend as much time researching the breadth of titles published/produced by a company or its subsidiaries as you do. I just play games in my very limited spare time.