152 réponses à ce sujet

[druid126]

Yes, yes it was. So why change it? Well... wasn't Pacman successful? Wasn't Tetris successful? Wasn't Half-Life 1 successful? Wasn't Final Fantasy I successful? Wasn't Golden-Eye successful? Wasn't Pong successful? Wasn't Asteroids successful? I could go on. I really could, this list is near endless, only I begin to get away from the point.

Games evolve. They change. Graphics upgrade, weapons upgrade, ammo reload styles upgrade, stories change, characters change, and all plots move forward or die off. Could you imagine if all games were the same as they were in the 80's? In the 90's? In the early 2000's? What if no developer took risks to try and change the way the player interacts with games? What if all devs stuck with the status quo because they were "successful"? Every game you play would be a tired rehash of older games simply because they were successful.

Why did Mass Effect take off? Was it, it's story? Possibly. But the one selling feature that I've used to interest my friends in to playing it is the dialogue system. Why is that, you ask? Well quite simply it was revolutionary. Sure, other games had voiced main characters. Other games had dialogue choices. But Mass Effect was the first game that took choices, added a voice to it, and brought your character to life. It successfully (at least to me) blended cinema and action, without destroying interaction. Maybe you don't like the story. Maybe you don't like having a voice. Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's trying to enjoy your text based adventures on windows 3.1. Whatever your reasons for this complaint it needs to be accepted that all things change or die.

Sure DA 2 could be a clone of DA:O. I'm sure the hardcore fans would love that. But what would DA 3 look like? The same? What about DA 4? DA 5? Are we going to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now playing a game from 2009? Would you want your graphics to never update? Would you like your characters to never evolve? Would you really, truly, honestly, prefer that there be no fresh blood injected in to these plots? 

Yeah, Hawke is voiced. Yeah, the plot is predetermined with limiting choices. But how free were your choices in DA:O? You couldn't run away from the blight. You could be a dick, sure, but you couldn't truly be evil. You couldn't allow the dragon to destroy the kingdom. You were locked in to a predetermined set of choices from the very beginning of the game. Just like every other game. Except with DA2 BioWare wants to try something new. They want their game to evolve. They want to see a story that spans a decade rather than a few weeks or months.

Most games don't do this, so far I haven't run in to one that does. BioWare wants to make sure they aren't losing money by the time they decide to upgrade the franchise. Before you respond to this post think about it clearly. Mull it over. Really ponder this question:

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?

I sincerely hope this post isn't simply ignored or bumped far, far away simply because of the overwhelming complaints. Really think about this issue before you start titling posts "BIOWARE RUINED MY GAME".

[IronVanguard]

Yes, but Final Fantasy XIII sucks.

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

Yes, yes it was. So why change it? Well... wasn't Pacman successful? Wasn't Tetris successful? Wasn't Half-Life 1 successful? Wasn't Final Fantasy I successful? Wasn't Golden-Eye successful? Wasn't Pong successful? Wasn't Asteroids successful? I could go on. I really could, this list is near endless, only I begin to get away from the point.

Games evolve. They change. Graphics upgrade, weapons upgrade, ammo reload styles upgrade, stories change, characters change, and all plots move forward or die off. Could you imagine if all games were the same as they were in the 80's? In the 90's? In the early 2000's? What if no developer took risks to try and change the way the player interacts with games? What if all devs stuck with the status quo because they were "successful"? Every game you play would be a tired rehash of older games simply because they were successful.

Why did Mass Effect take off? Was it, it's story? Possibly. But the one selling feature that I've used to interest my friends in to playing it is the dialogue system. Why is that, you ask? Well quite simply it was revolutionary. Sure, other games had voiced main characters. Other games had dialogue choices. But Mass Effect was the first game that took choices, added a voice to it, and brought your character to life. It successfully (at least to me) blended cinema and action, without destroying interaction. Maybe you don't like the story. Maybe you don't like having a voice. Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's trying to enjoy your text based adventures on windows 3.1. Whatever your reasons for this complaint it needs to be accepted that all things change or die.

Sure DA 2 could be a clone of DA:O. I'm sure the hardcore fans would love that. But what would DA 3 look like? The same? What about DA 4? DA 5? Are we going to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now playing a game from 2009? Would you want your graphics to never update? Would you like your characters to never evolve? Would you really, truly, honestly, prefer that there be no fresh blood injected in to these plots? 

Yeah, Hawke is voiced. Yeah, the plot is predetermined with limiting choices. But how free were your choices in DA:O? You couldn't run away from the blight. You could be a dick, sure, but you couldn't truly be evil. You couldn't allow the dragon to destroy the kingdom. You were locked in to a predetermined set of choices from the very beginning of the game. Just like every other game. Except with DA2 BioWare wants to try something new. They want their game to evolve. They want to see a story that spans a decade rather than a few weeks or months.

Most games don't do this, so far I haven't run in to one that does. BioWare wants to make sure they aren't losing money by the time they decide to upgrade the franchise. Before you respond to this post think about it clearly. Mull it over. Really ponder this question:

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?

I sincerely hope this post isn't simply ignored or bumped far, far away simply because of the overwhelming complaints. Really think about this issue before you start titling posts "BIOWARE RUINED MY GAME".

I"m just going to say Darkspawn Chronicles, though that DLC sucked

But anyways, DA:O even though it was set, it wasn't a set rigid as how DA2 is turning out to be, as for graphics... all games get updated graphic wise, that's not really an issue

[Lucy Glitter]

Devs have said they are keeping with the times, so to speak. I think.



Look, personally, I think people need to be forced to use their imagination more, with a silent PC and such, but then it won't sell as much.



DA sold 3 mil. Not a blockbuster, but still pretty stable.



I hate how people say a silent PC is like a mannequin staring and watching an NPC have a conversation by themselves - it's like people taking everything at face value. Vegetables. Zombies. That is why films that make you think aren't as popular as big explodey films that have lots of fun car chases and such.

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

I"m just going to say Darkspawn Chronicles, though that DLC sucked

But anyways, DA:O even though it was set, it wasn't a set rigid as how DA2 is turning out to be, as for graphics... all games get updated graphic wise, that's not really an issue

How exactly do you figure DA 2 is rigid?

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

I"m just going to say Darkspawn Chronicles, though that DLC sucked

But anyways, DA:O even though it was set, it wasn't a set rigid as how DA2 is turning out to be, as for graphics... all games get updated graphic wise, that's not really an issue

How exactly do you figure DA 2 is rigid?

One Origin story from 6
Dialogue Wheel from List System
VO from no VO

I say DA:O gives better freedom for your character

[condiments1]

People seem perfectly content to make excuses about Bioware having the same plot structure since 2000.
Hey if we're changing with the times, where is my FPS with space marines and guns? We have mass effect, why not one more? Hey why not multiplayer action with RPG elements? Bioware get on this please.

Modifié par condiments1, 11 juillet 2010 - 05:03 .

[Addai]

druid126 wrote...
Maybe you don't like the story. Maybe you don't like having a voice. Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's trying to enjoy your text based adventures on windows 3.1. Whatever your reasons for this complaint it needs to be accepted that all things change or die.

Maybe you should consider that what you enjoy in a game is not what everyone else does?  Or must all games be the same because you and your friends agree it's the new and hot thing?

To turn things around on you, there are a lot of "hot new trends" that should better have been left on the darkroom floor.  Just because a lot of people watch the latest slackjawed reality TV show does not make television better because of it.

Would you want your graphics to never update? Would you like your characters to never evolve? Would you really, truly, honestly, prefer that there be no fresh blood injected in to these plots?

"Update" implies you're using the same basic game and making it better, not that you're changing the underlying basis of the first game's success.  Apparently you want DA to be the same as every other game being produced.  How is that so original, fresh and new?

Modifié par Addai67, 11 juillet 2010 - 05:03 .

[IronVanguard]

Also, graphics are overrated.

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

druid126 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

I"m just going to say Darkspawn Chronicles, though that DLC sucked

But anyways, DA:O even though it was set, it wasn't a set rigid as how DA2 is turning out to be, as for graphics... all games get updated graphic wise, that's not really an issue

How exactly do you figure DA 2 is rigid?

One Origin story from 6
Dialogue Wheel from List System
VO from no VO

I say DA:O gives better freedom for your character

How it isn't rigid:

One: a story that spans ten years where *every* decisions influence the entire kingdom
Two: A voiced over character that shows emotion
Three: The same list system... except now it's a circle and not a square? Oh my... how rigid.

Using the same points I can argue that DA 2 gives better freedom for your character  But it certainly doesn't invalidate my earlier question, which you seems to have ignored in order to harsh on DA 2.

[Khayness]

druid126 wrote...

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?

Sure, I'll just pick it up again and play it. Just like I play Baldur's Gate every year and enjoying it.

[Wishpig]

druid126 wrote...

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?

I plan to be dead by then.

[druid126]

Addai67 wrote...

druid126 wrote...
Maybe you don't like the story. Maybe you don't like having a voice. Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's trying to enjoy your text based adventures on windows 3.1. Whatever your reasons for this complaint it needs to be accepted that all things change or die.

Maybe you should consider that what you enjoy in a game is not what everyone else does?  Or must all games be the same because you and your friends agree it's the new and hot thing?

To turn things around on you, there are a lot of "hot new trends" that should better have been left on the darkroom floor.  Just because a lot of people watch the latest slackjawed reality TV show does not make television better because of it.

Would you want your graphics to never update? Would you like your characters to never evolve? Would you really, truly, honestly, prefer that there be no fresh blood injected in to these plots?

"Update" implies you're using the same basic game and making it better, not that you're changing the underlying basis of the first game's success.  Apparently you want DA to be the same as every other game being produced.  How is that so original, fresh and new?

I did, in fact, consider that what I like isn't what everyone else likes. But it does seem to me, even though I strongly dislike reality TV shows, they're quite popular. It was a producer who took a chance and revamped the basic idea of what TV was that made them successful. They pull in a *huge* viewer ship. So I don't like it. Doesn't make it wrong. 

Apparently you also think I want DA to be the same game as every other one out there. Apparently *you* want it to be static forever. The lore hasn't changed, the writers haven't changed, only the story setting has. There's a new character, one you get to create and control, and a new country to explore. The only thing that has "upgraded" are the game mechanics. Isn't that what games do? Did you ignore my whole post? Final Fantasy 1 game mechanics are waaaaaaaay different than Final Fantasy 7, was 7 less popular? Was it worse?

Accept things change. It's the way of the world.

[druid126]

Khayness wrote...

druid126 wrote...

Do you want to play in the static world of Dragon Age: Origins 30 years from now?

Sure, I'll just pick it up again and play it. Just like I play Baldur's Gate every year and enjoying it.

Just like I pick up and play Half-Life 2 and Kotor every year  But does Kotor still pull in millions of sales every year?

[angelgaidin]

Video games are an audio/visual medium.  The only imagination required in audio/visual media is the willing suspension of disbelief.  It's in the very nature of the medium to limit imagination to this extent.  The only reason it has ever been otherwise was due to technological limitations.  If a developer wished you to use your imagination that much, they would make a text-only game.  If a gamer wants to imagine the majority of his game and be immersed to a level that this medium no longer accomodates, they should head to their local hobby shop and play some D&D or some other tabletop game.  The rest of us have acknowledged the limitation of the medium and will enjoy the wonderful games that BioWare develops.

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

How it isn't rigid:

One: a story that spans ten years where *every* decisions influence the entire kingdom
Two: A voiced over character that shows emotion
Three: The same list system... except now it's a circle and not a square? Oh my... how rigid.

Using the same points I can argue that DA 2 gives better freedom for your character  But it certainly doesn't invalidate my earlier question, which you seems to have ignored in order to harsh on DA 2.

1) Entire kingdom? Since when? So far Kirkwall is in a the Free Marches and the Free Marches are collection of city-states, not a Kingdom. Sound like DA:O has the upper hand in this where you actually save the kingdom/country from a civil-war.

2)I rather role-play what a silent protagonist can say to an NPC rather than watch in 'cinematic experience' two people talking.

3) Now you're just being ignorant, the wheel was basically 'Bad' 'Good' 'Neutral' at msot with an 'Investigate option on the left side whereas the lsit system in DA:O could be Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic, all these things.

[Khayness]

druid126 wrote...
Just like I pick up and play Half-Life 2 and Kotor every year  But does Kotor still pull in millions of sales every year?

Sure as hell I didn't ask for capitalism.

[Jestina]

Slow evolution in RPG's over the years is expected, but drastic changes from one game to the next is not good.



Look at ME1 to 2

Inventory system was not fixed. It was completely removed. Shepard and party now have one suit of armour for the entire game unless you get DLC.

Character statistics were greatly shrunk to the point that they don't matter much, except to get you bigger explosions.

The game was made even more linear.

The game became even more focused on moving from one shooting mission to the next.

Planetary exploration...gone.

[angelgaidin]

Anathemic wrote...

1) Entire kingdom? Since when? So far Kirkwall is in a the Free Marches and the Free Marches are collection of city-states, not a Kingdom. Sound like DA:O has the upper hand in this where you actually save the kingdom/country from a civil-war.

You have no idea what the central conflict of DA2 is.  This point is rather invalid, since no one can have any idea which game has a superior story at this point, given that we have no information concerning DA2's story.

[Khayness]

Jestina wrote...

Look at ME1 to 2
Inventory system was not fixed. It was completely removed. Shepard and party now have one suit of armour for the entire game unless you get DLC.
Character statistics were greatly shrunk to the point that they don't matter much, except to get you bigger explosions.
The game was made even more linear.
The game became even more focused on moving from one shooting mission to the next.
Planetary exploration...gone.

Sales go up! Making our arguments invalid, sadly.

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

druid126 wrote...

How it isn't rigid:

One: a story that spans ten years where *every* decisions influence the entire kingdom
Two: A voiced over character that shows emotion
Three: The same list system... except now it's a circle and not a square? Oh my... how rigid.

Using the same points I can argue that DA 2 gives better freedom for your character  But it certainly doesn't invalidate my earlier question, which you seems to have ignored in order to harsh on DA 2.

1) Entire kingdom? Since when? So far Kirkwall is in a the Free Marches and the Free Marches are collection of city-states, not a Kingdom. Sound like DA:O has the upper hand in this where you actually save the kingdom/country from a civil-war.

2)I rather role-play what a silent protagonist can say to an NPC rather than watch in 'cinematic experience' two people talking.

3) Now you're just being ignorant, the wheel was basically 'Bad' 'Good' 'Neutral' at msot with an 'Investigate option on the left side whereas the lsit system in DA:O could be Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic, all these things.

Actually:


1) My bad, way to nit-pick words. But it *is* a collection of city states. But who's to say you can't, through your choices, unify it. In fact, from most dev posts it sounds like you will be able to.

2) You still choose what you want to say but it flows naturally.

3) I'm afraid it's you who's being ignorant. The wheel in Mass Effect is similar but not the same as the one being used in DA 2. If you've actually read the few acknowledgements towards this new system you'd realise that they've implemented "Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic..." and yes "...all these things." Even that wheel in ME was more than just Good, neutral, bad. However, it's been oversimplified by those who wish to bash new things and hate when the world changes without them.

[Altima Darkspells]

One of DAO's sellings points is that it was a traditional game keeping in tone with Baldur's Gate, to the point where it was called a spiritual successor (though I personally felt DAO had more in common, spiritually, with KotOR than BG...).



The games you listen are among the very first video games. Of course games change over time--the technology vastly improves. DA2, however, is using the same engine--probably with very few actual tweaks--as DAO. They have to, in order to meet the approximate two year development cycle.



However, it seems that DA2 is straying away from its roots. If people like ME, that's fine. They can play ME. There is absolutely no need to bring that system into DA2, and the very fans who bothered with DAO are the ones who are getting screwed. Not the fans of ME, who already have two games and a soon to be third.



By taking out the Origins, the other races besides human, and limiting your character to the same basic archetype is not even a step forward. It's a step backwards.

[Jestina]

Khayness wrote...

Jestina wrote...
Look at ME1 to 2
Inventory system was not fixed. It was completely removed. Shepard and party now have one suit of armour for the entire game unless you get DLC.
Character statistics were greatly shrunk to the point that they don't matter much, except to get you bigger explosions.
The game was made even more linear.
The game became even more focused on moving from one shooting mission to the next.
Planetary exploration...gone.

Sales go up! Making our arguments invalid, sadly.

I forgot to add sexing up ME2, like having Miranda's ass thrown in your face. That equals more sales among younger males.

[angelgaidin]

Anathemic wrote...

3) Now you're just being ignorant, the wheel was basically 'Bad' 'Good' 'Neutral' at msot with an 'Investigate option on the left side whereas the lsit system in DA:O could be Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic, all these things.

Another point of contention, we have no idea if DA2's conversation wheel will be railroaded to the three major options the same way ME1/2 do.  All we know is there is a wheel, we know nothing of the regular orientation of responses around it, the number of regular responses, or if, indeed, there is anything regular to do with responses or their orientation.

[druid126]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

One of DAO's sellings points is that it was a traditional game keeping in tone with Baldur's Gate, to the point where it was called a spiritual successor (though I personally felt DAO had more in common, spiritually, with KotOR than BG...).

The games you listen are among the very first video games. Of course games change over time--the technology vastly improves. DA2, however, is using the same engine--probably with very few actual tweaks--as DAO. They have to, in order to meet the approximate two year development cycle.

However, it seems that DA2 is straying away from its roots. If people like ME, that's fine. They can play ME. There is absolutely no need to bring that system into DA2, and the very fans who bothered with DAO are the ones who are getting screwed. Not the fans of ME, who already have two games and a soon to be third.

By taking out the Origins, the other races besides human, and limiting your character to the same basic archetype is not even a step forward. It's a step backwards.

Would you not say that those very first video games had their sequels stray from their roots? The story universes they took place in had the same concepts and feelings but the actual mechanics changed. It shouldn't take 20 years for a game to improve. It should happen when they realise what they didn't like doing in the first one.

Race had very little bearing on the game short of a few dialogue nods and a 30 minute origin story. It limits choice in no way.