1230 réponses à ce sujet

[joriandrake]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

3. I do not derail the thread because the topic is the direction of where DA2 is heading and this is ontopic for that
4. No I won't

I was too curt.  I apologise.

2. You disagree with ALL my points of what RPG is about, seriously?

I don't think any of the points you listed are required for a game to be an RPG.  I don't think you dealt with the role-playing.

You did mention the ability to decide what your character says and does - which was close - but since those are actually decided by the writers we don't have a ton of freedom to say or do what we'd like.  I think the role-playing comes in how we decide to do things rather than what we actually do.

If I roll a rock down a hill and kill someone, did I do it in order to kill him, or was his death incidental?  If it was incidental, did I do it even though I knew he'd die (and didn't care) or did I think he'd get out of the way?  And this all assumes my character even knew he was there.

As you described it, the choice was whether to roll the rock down the hill (possibly whether to kill that man by rolling the rock down the hill).  I think the role-playing resides in how and why you decided to roll the rock.

edit: Ninja'd by Stan.

I am a bit confused by your description, but if I am not mistaken your idea of RPG is more equal with what adventure games are about, and not the usual pnp RPG

[joriandrake]

ejoslin wrote...

RPG has always been a specific genre. I see people changing that definition to include, well, ANY game at all. It takes more than an avatar and a story to make a game an RPG. I think we can agree that halo fits that definition but is NOT an RPG.

one thing is sure: the less you are able to costumize the looks/actions/stats of your character in it, the less it becomes an RPG

[Sylvius the Mad]

I see Adventure games as being more about what you do, and not why you do them. This is why I call ME an adventure game.

[the_one_54321]

Ahem:

Stanley Woo wrote...
The "definition of an RPG" is a long-winded argument that never comes to any resolution, because everyone has their own definition of what constitutes an RPG and what games fall into that category. it is a HUGE discussion in its own right, and doesn't belong here in the DA2 forums. There may already be a thread in this forum about it already, and there is certainly one in Off Topic, so take your discussion there.

[Jimmy Fury]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It sounds very much like DA2 is also intended to be a first-person narrative, so we (the players) should have far more control over the personalities of our various Hawkes than were ever seen in ME or the Witcher.

hehe, I once came up with a very detailed examination of why DAO isn't a first person narrative but I digress that's for another topic entirely.

I very much believe that Gaider, Kirby, and the rest are all capable of giving us just that. I've seen nothing that suggests the character building aspects and the control over Hawke's destiny will be anything like ME. I've seen nothing that even says they'll be anything like DA:O. That leaves a lot of directions but I have other things to stress myself out over in terms of the future of Bioware games. In this respect I prefer to keep an open mind and consider the possiblity that we could be in for something vastly superior to anything we've seen before.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.

These definitions quite fit well the electronic role playing games, which are very different from the true RPG experience, PnP. IMO, electronic RPGs shouldn't even be qualified as such in first place if we're getting really deep in a discussion about what RPG games are, which IMO is not really relevant if the game is fun.
You mentioned GTA, which is funny. I should say that if CJ (Carl Johson) was some kind of an avatar (player name and character creator) and if GTA San Andreas had dialogue options and choices (these were seen in GTA4), GTA SA would be probably one of the best roleplaying games ever. The mechanics (some of them were unique at the time), huge world, depth and side quests were there.

[ejoslin]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.

These definitions quite fit well the electronic role playing games, which are very different from the true RPG experience, PnP. IMO, electronic RPGs shouldn't even be qualified as such in first place if we're getting really deep in a discussion about what RPG games are, which IMO is not really relevant if the game is fun.
You mentioned GTA, which is funny. I should say that if CJ (Carl Johson) was some kind of an avatar (player name and character creator) and if GTA San Andreas had dialogue options and choices (these were seen in GTA4), GTA SA would be probably one of the best roleplaying games ever. The mechanics (some of them were unique at the time), huge world, depth and side quests were there.

And there's the rub.  Are all story driven games now RPGs?  Or is there more to it?  I think there's more to it.

There will always be people like me who like becoming a character, not watching a character.  And there will be others who think that is boring.

Ultimately, if there's a compelling story, people will appreciate it.  But the delivery, tastes just vary so much.  People who are upset about the change are not wrong (we're not), but probably many of the people who welcome it are not as well.  

Really, I think FO3 is more of an RPG than ME2.  It has a shallower story, but gah, I do feel like the Lone Wanderer.  I love taking that role as well.  I remember one time wandering around the wastelands with dogmeat, hearing nothing but his panting and the very quiet music playing, and feeling lonely.

The ME games, while I find them entertaining, I don't find myself involved at the same level.  Not everyone gets into a silent protagonist the same way, however.  But for those of us that do, it's sad when one of the best of the genre moves away from it.

[Davasar]

Davasar wrote...

Mr. Gaider,

I appreciate your honesty. What I and many are still waiting for is the answer to the question: Why?

Why change that which was commercially and critically successful. Basic marketing is that you keep your core, target audience by adding new features to that which made them happy, and improving other existing features.

The only logical conclusion is that these fans in a silent, but polite way were told to "screw off". That may not be the intended message, but what else are they left to think when the game isnt being made to their target demograph?

They are not being targeted anymore by the changes, that fact is plain.

So, please answer the question:

Why change it when you knew it would drive much of the core audience away?

If you say something like "we dont care about them anymore" or "We arent making games for them anymore" at least we will respect the candor.

What we dont want is shell gaming.

Reposting for the answer to the original topic and this question above.

Modifié par Davasar, 12 juillet 2010 - 11:03 .

[AndreaDraco]

ejoslin wrote...

And there's the rub.  Are all story driven games now RPGs?  Or is there more to it?  I think there's more to it.

There will always be people like me who like becoming a character, not watching a character.  And there will be others who think that is boring.

Ultimately, if there's a compelling story, people will appreciate it.  But the delivery, tastes just vary so much.  People who are upset about the change are not wrong (we're not), but probably many of the people who welcome it are not as well.  

Really, I think FO3 is more of an RPG than ME2.  It has a shallower story, but gah, I do feel like the Lone Wanderer.  I love taking that role as well.  I remember one time wandering around the wastelands with dogmeat, hearing nothing but his panting and the very quiet music playing, and feeling lonely.

The ME games, while I find them entertaining, I don't find myself involved at the same level.  Not everyone gets into a silent protagonist the same way, however.  But for those of us that do, it's sad when one of the best of the genre moves away from it.

While I seriously think that nothing can, obviously, be compared with PnP role-playing games, because they are the only ones where every choice is *really* relevant, since the Storyteller (yes, I'm a White Wolf fanboy) is a sentient human being, I also agree with you about your analysis. A CRPG with a silent protagonist is capable of drawing me into the story way more than a CRPG with a voiced character. If this character is even predefined, à la Shepard, than it's difficult for me to roleplay it, and thus I experience the game more like an adventure game (a genre that, mind you, I adore).

[Ecael]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Arguing about the definition is not going to change anything about the mechanical aspects that people do or don't want to see in the game. What label you place on those aspects is irrelevant.

Except it's not a label when those "aspects" are strictly defined.

Being able to choose your race isn't tantamount to an RPG "aspect" in any shape or form.

Why do you care? It doesn't matter if "[X] makes it an RPG." They still want to see [X] in the game whether it makes it an RPG or not.

What some are arguing is that Dragon Age 2 is no longer an RPG because of it.

Regardless of whether you can choose from 1 race or 20 races, it's not going to affect the fact that it's still a BioWare RPG.

As for whether it's relevant to the topic, it is relevant to this discussion in particular because people brought up the letters "R" "P" and "G".

one thing is sure: the less you are able to costumize the looks/actions/stats of your character in it, the less it becomes an RPG

So RPGs like The Witcher and Deus Ex aren't RPGs because you can't customize your character's looks and voice whatsoever?

RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.

...World of Warcraft is an RPG. An MMORPG, in fact.

Also, you need to go down this list and describe where GTA and Just Cause apply:

• 1. Main quest or storyline (often with side quests)
• 2. Main character (often with side characters)
• 3. Character improvement or progression (often through "experience points")
• 4. Character classes or roles
• 5. Immediate representation of the game world

In other words, quests, characters, progression, classes/roles and a fully designed game world at the player's disposal is the definition of an RPG.

GTA and Just Cause have quests, characters and fully designed game worlds, but as to progression and classes/roles? Hardly any whatsoever.

[David Gaider]

Davasar wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Mr. Gaider,

I appreciate your honesty. What I and many are still waiting for is the answer to the question: Why?

Why change that which was commercially and critically successful. Basic marketing is that you keep your core, target audience by adding new features to that which made them happy, and improving other existing features.

The only logical conclusion is that these fans in a silent, but polite way were told to "screw off". That may not be the intended message, but what else are they left to think when the game isnt being made to their target demograph?

They are not being targeted anymore by the changes, that fact is plain.

So, please answer the question:

Why change it when you knew it would drive much of the core audience away?

If you say something like "we dont care about them anymore" or "We arent making games for them anymore" at least we will respect the candor.

What we dont want is shell gaming.

Reposting for the answer to the original topic and this question above.

Really? I posted an answer to this as best I can and your response is to ask "why?" again with an even more leading question? No offense, but it seems like you already have an answer in mind.

There's really nothing more I can add, save to suggest that you wait and see if someone like Mike Laidlaw cares to present his thought process here for dissection.

[DragonRageGT]

Ecael wrote...

RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.

...World of Warcraft is an RPG. An MMORPG, in fact.

Also, you need to go down this list and describe where GTA and Just Cause apply:

• 1. Main quest or storyline (often with side quests)
• 2. Main character (often with side characters)
• 3. Character improvement or progression (often through "experience points")
• 4. Character classes or roles
• 5. Immediate representation of the game world

In other words, quests, characters, progression, classes/roles and a fully designed game world at the player's disposal is the definition of an RPG.

GTA and Just Cause have quests, characters and fully designed game worlds, but as to progression and classes/roles? Hardly any whatsoever.

Well, if you call a horde of Out Of Character players screaming LFG as a Role Play... MMO are hardly RPG's even if they're labeled it. Very different of a small bunch playing In Character during a DM'ed session in a NWN Permanent World, for instance, with no OOC coming out of the blue by any player.

And CJ definitely has a lot of progression during GTA3. From a skinny weakling often abused by everyone to a respectful leader and a fatty or a muscle man, amazing driver/biker/shooter or the contraire if you chose so. And he has his role as well, why not. Not everyone chose to make 800 million dollars playing blackjack but even in ME you could go for it playing in some machines!

Also, what I really wanted to see in Dragon Age 2 is the ability to play multiplayer with amazing rp'ers like NWN allowed us to do. Not to mention that the mplayer system with cd-key check is the best DRM around.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

ejoslin wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.

These definitions quite fit well the electronic role playing games, which are very different from the true RPG experience, PnP. IMO, electronic RPGs shouldn't even be qualified as such in first place if we're getting really deep in a discussion about what RPG games are, which IMO is not really relevant if the game is fun.
You mentioned GTA, which is funny. I should say that if CJ (Carl Johson) was some kind of an avatar (player name and character creator) and if GTA San Andreas had dialogue options and choices (these were seen in GTA4), GTA SA would be probably one of the best roleplaying games ever. The mechanics (some of them were unique at the time), huge world, depth and side quests were there.

And there's the rub.  Are all story driven games now RPGs?  Or is there more to it?  I think there's more to it.

There will always be people like me who like becoming a character, not watching a character.  And there will be others who think that is boring.

Ultimately, if there's a compelling story, people will appreciate it.  But the delivery, tastes just vary so much.  People who are upset about the change are not wrong (we're not), but probably many of the people who welcome it are not as well.  

Really, I think FO3 is more of an RPG than ME2.  It has a shallower story, but gah, I do feel like the Lone Wanderer.  I love taking that role as well.  I remember one time wandering around the wastelands with dogmeat, hearing nothing but his panting and the very quiet music playing, and feeling lonely.

The ME games, while I find them entertaining, I don't find myself involved at the same level.  Not everyone gets into a silent protagonist the same way, however.  But for those of us that do, it's sad when one of the best of the genre moves away from it.

I will always prefer voiced protagonists from here on. Seeing Shepard SPEAK was a huge impact on me. I don't know about you, but I felt that was the voice of Richard Shepard, my Shepard. I had this kind of experience and made me get 100% more immersed, I never liked or saw much sense on silent protagonists (besides Half Life), although I can understand why some people prefer it. It was very well handled by Bioware too, because you chose what the character will speak, but Shepard says everything according to the context of the conversation and it would never get the feeling the voice is just repeating what the line says, and sometimes it surprised me how cool was what he was saying. Though I really don't get that same feel playing The Witcher (which I'm doing these days).
I know that the moment I start playing DAO (I will sometime) I will miss the voice on the Grey Warden during dialogues.

[ejoslin]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

I will always prefer voiced protagonists from here on. Seeing Shepard SPEAK was a huge impact on me. I don't know about you, but I felt that was the voice of Richard Shepard, my Shepard. I had this kind of experience and made me get 100% more immersed, I never liked or saw much sense on silent protagonists (besides Half Life), although I can understand why some people prefer it. It was very well handled by Bioware too, because you chose what the character will speak, but Shepard says everything according to the context of the conversation and it would never get the feeling the voice is just repeating what the line says, and sometimes it surprised me how cool was what he was saying. Though I really don't get that same feel playing The Witcher (which I'm doing these days).
I know that the moment I start playing DAO (I will sometime) I will miss the voice on the Grey Warden during dialogues.

I understand and respect that you prefer a voiced protagonist.  Can you understand and respect the other point of view?  People are talking here about not liking this change because, well, we don't.  There's no other place to discuss that, hear from the writers about it, etc.  

With a silent protagonist, I find myself actually IN the role.  I cannot imagine the romance scenes having the same impact if I'm hearing someone else's voice say those lines rather than my inner voice, as an example.  Even though I'm not an Alistair fan, even my heart fluttered a little when he said, "Maker's breath, but you're beautiful. I am a lucky man."  I would not have had the same reaction had the Warden been voiced. 

See, to me, that's the advantage to a silent protagonist -- my inner voice says the line, so a part of me is actually IN the story, rather than selecting a paraphrase and watching someone else say it.  I go from being IN the story to watching the story.  Some people DO find watching a story more immersive.  Some people don't.  And the people who don't are sad that a fabulous franchise that did that the first game is now going to the third person perspective.

I'm sure it will be good. I'm not saying it won't be. But oh, it won't be the same at all.  For some, that's a good thing.  I get that.  But for others, bleh, it is not.

[Pocketgb]

Kalfear wrote...

RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.

LOL, save your breath Rage.

Ecael and her passive aggresive nonsense and made up opinions stated as facts will get you no where.
You say up and prove it, she casually dismisses your well through arguement and says down with a graph or partial quote taken totally out of context!

Make her look foolish (which many have, and she gets her good freind to lock thread.

I just hope Bioware smart enough to realize those that question everything are their target audience. Chances are the Ecaels and Alanc9s and LPPrinces wont even buy the games anyways, they just here to argue and annoy you to utter fustration. The people worried about the games are the ones that play and enjoy the products and feel attatched to those products. Obviously by their willingness to have everything changed, the troll crowd felt no connection to the games to begin with and wanted something else.

Time will tell if Bioware does realize the truth of the matter OR if the cyber ego stroking of those that blindly rubber stamp every little move they do is what they enjoy!

As a long time manager of bussinesses, id much rather hear passionate and intellegent comments (even negative) then just someone saying "In "so and so" we blindly trust".

Looks like you'll need one of these.

RageGT wrote...

WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

RP servers say hello.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 12 juillet 2010 - 11:47 .

[elearon1]

Okay, just to get this out of the way, I have been GMing roleplaying games for 20 years; I have run and played dozens of systems; I have written for multiple systems and playtested for just as many. By definition I am an expert in the field of roleplaying. That said, just about every game Bioware has ever produced has been a roleplaying game in one form or another.

The question is not "is it a roleplaying game" but, "to what degree is it a roleplaying game?" It could be argue that ME is more of a roleplaying game than DA:O because you have to learn to take on a persona which may very different from yourself ... that is, you may have to stretch your ability to relate in pursuit of *playing a role*. Some would suggest that is the very essence of Roleplaying. In that regard, actors are roleplayers in the extreme - because the characters they play are not predominately them with another face, but someone they may even have difficulty relating to in real life.

The act of roleplaying is "adopting and playing a role", nothing more. The Witcher is nearly as much an rpg as ME - only a few issues differentiate the two. (You can't decide that Geralt is gay, for example, as he is an established character) In the popular definition, DA:O is more of an rpg than ME because you have more control of who your character is, but it isn't the ability to pick his/her appearance or race that makes it an rpg, it is the ability to put yourself into the role of someone else and make decisions as if you were that person.

So the argument "is it an rpg?" is pointless ... the answer is an unwavering, YES.

The issue instead becomes, "is it the rpg you want to play?". For me the answer is still yes. While I will miss playing my snarky, scrappy, devil may care, rogue turned Warden from the first game, I suspect the gameplay in the sequel will find other ways to engage me and draw me into the character of Hawke. (who will likely be female in my first playthrough)

Mostly what people seem to be complaining about is a turn from the DA:O style rpg to the ME style ... and I can understand that. I can't imagine how I'd feel if ME suddenly starting using the Dragon Age engine ... it just wouldn't mesh with what I see in my head when I think of Mass Effect. That, really, is the only thing I can see as the real issue of debate ... which is better.

Me, I know that it will be something of a mental change of gears to go from one to the other ... especially if I've been playing DA recently when DA2 is released ... but crpgs are being forced to evolve to keep up with the times and I can either evolve with them or watch the genre pass me by. Will I always have a softer spot in my heart for DA than DA2? Probably ... just as I have a softer place for BG2 and NWN (at least the mods) than DA ... but I am willing to accept these changes for the sake of enjoying myself ... and I encourage others to try the same.

Modifié par elearon1, 12 juillet 2010 - 11:51 .

[Talof]

Ecael wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Define RPG.

Brittanica has the best definition of it:

electronic role-playing game - electronic game genre in which players advance through a story quest, and often many side quests, for which their character or party of characters gain experience that improves various attributes and abilities. The genre is almost entirely rooted in TSR, Inc.’s Dungeons & Dragons (D&D; 1974), a role-playing game (RPG) for small groups in which each player takes some role, such as a healer, warrior, or wizard, to help his party battle evil as directed by the group’s Dungeon Master, or assigned storyteller.

Anders Tychsen further elaborates:

The use of a [computer RPG] virtual world is of both advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is that the players are provided an immediate representation of the game world. This alleviates a fundamental problem in PnP RPGs, that players perceive events through their individual minds eye, which can lead to confusion, for example about who is doing what during an encounter with opponents. The disadvantage is that the representation of the game world hinders the formation of deeply personal visualizations in the individual minds eye of the players. Furthermore, current CRPGs do not have any genuine dynamic feedback capacity as that provided by a human GM.

To break that into a list, video game RPGs have:

• Main quest or storyline (often with side quests)
• Main character (often with side characters)
• Character improvement or progression (often through "experience points")
• Character classes or roles
• Immediate representation of the game world

In other words, quests, characters, progression, classes/roles and a fully designed game world at the player's disposal is the definition of an RPG.

BioWare is further up on the end of RPGs because they provide well-written and clearly defined quests, dialogue and characters. The actual game world is more immediate in that there are many ambient sounds, characters and - most of all - voices that populate them.

The last part is the most important part - an "electronic" RPG is designed so that most or all the imagination is not up to the player. They play the role defined strictly by the developers - they only give you their options to choose from, not yours. That is the limitation of every video game defined as an RPG.

Roleplaying is not defined through the medium you use to roleplay.  Its simply assuming the role of a character you've created plain and simple.  if you have a predefined character its not roleplaying that would be closer to pretending or mimicry than roleplaying.

[DragonRageGT]

elearon1 wrote...

Okay, just to get this out of the way, I have been GMing roleplaying games for 20 years; I have run and played dozens of systems; I have written for multiple systems and playtested for just as many. By definition I am an expert in the field of roleplaying. That said, just about every game Bioware has ever produced has been a roleplaying game in one form or another.

The question is not "is it a roleplaying game" but, "to what degree is it a roleplaying game?" It could be argue that ME is more of a roleplaying game than DA:O because you have to learn to take on a persona which may very different from yourself ... that is, you may have to stretch your ability to relate in pursuit of *playing a role*. Some would suggest that is the very essence of Roleplaying. In that regard, actors are roleplayers in the extreme - because the characters they play are not predominately them with another face, but someone they may even have difficulty relating to in real life.

The act of roleplaying is "adopting and playing a role", nothing more. The Witcher is nearly as much an rpg as ME - only a few issues differentiate the two. (You can't decide that Geralt is gay, for example, as he is an established character) In the popular definition, DA:O is more of an rpg than ME because you have more control of who your character is, but it isn't the ability to pick his/her appearance or race that makes it an rpg, it is the ability to put yourself into the role of someone else and make decisions as if you were that person.

So the argument "is it an rpg?" is pointless ... the answer is an unwavering, YES.

The issue instead becomes, "is it the rpg you want to play?". For me the answer is still yes. While I will miss playing my snarky, scrappy, devil may care, rogue turned Warden from the first game, I suspect the gameplay in the sequel will find other ways to engage me and draw me into the character of Hawke. (who will likely be female in my first playthrough)

Mostly what people seem to be complaining about is a turn from the DA:O style rpg to the ME style ... and I can understand that. I can't imagine how I'd feel if ME suddenly starting using the Dragon Age engine ... it just wouldn't mesh with what I see in my head when I think of Mass Effect. That, really, is the only thing I can see as the real issue of debate ... which is better.

Me, I know that it will be something of a mental change of gears to go from one to the other ... especially if I've been playing DA recently when DA2 is released ... but crpgs are being forced to evolve to keep up with the times and I can either evolve with them or watch the genre pass me by. Will I always have a softer spot in my heart for DA than DA2? Probably ... just as I have a softer place for BG2 and NWN (at least the mods) than DA ... but I am willing to accept these changes for the sake of enjoying myself ... and I encourage others to try the same.

Morpheus? Is that you? Bring WotR back online,  will you?

[Davasar]

David Gaider wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Mr. Gaider,

I appreciate your honesty. What I and many are still waiting for is the answer to the question: Why?

Why change that which was commercially and critically successful. Basic marketing is that you keep your core, target audience by adding new features to that which made them happy, and improving other existing features.

The only logical conclusion is that these fans in a silent, but polite way were told to "screw off". That may not be the intended message, but what else are they left to think when the game isnt being made to their target demograph?

They are not being targeted anymore by the changes, that fact is plain.

So, please answer the question:

Why change it when you knew it would drive much of the core audience away?

If you say something like "we dont care about them anymore" or "We arent making games for them anymore" at least we will respect the candor.

What we dont want is shell gaming.

Reposting for the answer to the original topic and this question above.

Really? I posted an answer to this as best I can and your response is to ask "why?" again with an even more leading question? No offense, but it seems like you already have an answer in mind.

There's really nothing more I can add, save to suggest that you wait and see if someone like Mike Laidlaw cares to present his thought process here for dissection.

Mr. Gaider,

Thank you for the response.

As to having an answer already in mind:  I didnt.

Hence why I asked the question, but...

I suppose it was wishful thinking on my part to ask for such a direct, blunt answer from you as I am sure you have some sort of "gag order" on you as some companies put on their reps.

All the same, I am sure it is rather unpleasant for you to have to be thrown under the proverbial bus by higher ups when dealing with the process of elimination that most fans are faced with:

That they have been dumped by the wayside in favor of the hopes of "mass appeal".

If I see or learn of something that shows and proves the contrary, I will of course retract my cynisism and previous statements.

In conclusion, I wish you the best Mr. Gaider.

[Ecael]

[quote]RageGT wrote...

[quote]Ecael wrote...
[quote]RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.[/quote]
...World of Warcraft is an RPG. An MMORPG, in fact.

Also, you need to go down this list and describe where GTA and Just Cause apply:

[quote]

• 1. Main quest or storyline (often with side quests)
• 2. Main character (often with side characters)
• 3. Character improvement or progression (often through "experience points")
• 4. Character classes or roles
• 5. Immediate representation of the game world

In other words, quests, characters, progression, classes/roles and a fully designed game world at the player's disposal is the definition of an RPG.[/quote]
GTA and Just Cause have quests, characters and fully designed game worlds, but as to progression and classes/roles? Hardly any whatsoever.[/quote]

Well, if you call a horde of Out Of Character players screaming LFG as a Role Play... MMO are hardly RPG's even if they're labeled it. Very different of a small bunch playing In Character during a DM'ed session in a NWN Permanent World, for instance, with no OOC coming out of the blue by any player.[/quote]
That would then mean fourth wall references or pop culture references in games like Dragon Age: Origins disqualifies it from being an RPG.

MMORPGs are RPGs, except the side characters are often other people. Playing in-character all the time in any multiplayer game is the player's choice. If someone starts talking about how their day was in Neverwinter Nights, do you immediately throw the game away because he or she broke character and ruined the RPG for you?

[quote]And CJ definitely has a lot of progression during GTA3. From a skinny weakling often abused by everyone to a respectful leader and a fatty or a muscle man, amazing driver/biker/shooter or the contraire if you chose so. And he has his role as well, why not. Not everyone chose to make 800 million dollars playing blackjack but even in ME you could go for it playing in some machines![/quote]
Except that progression isn't illustrated well. For most people, it's leveling by experience (numerical form). You'll notice I didn't mention inventory as progression because it's not required for progression - otherwise, Just Cause's inventory would cover that.

As for roles, CJ from Grand Theft Auto only plays a single role in that progression. Just because it's an open world where you can do what you want in the order you wish doesn't mean you're playing a role. For RPGs, it's much clearer - Warrior, Rogue, Mage or Soldier, Infiltrator, Engineer, Adept, Vanguard, Sentinel. Squadmates and companions also play specific roles in both gameplay and story - something you won't see in Grand Theft Auto.

[quote]Also, what I really wanted to see in Dragon Age 2 is the ability to play multiplayer with amazing rp'ers like NWN allowed us to do. Not to mention that the mplayer system with cd-key check is the best DRM around.[/quote]
Multiplayer is a different issue that won't be resolved in Dragon Age 2.

Why? Because people would immediately panic and declare the end of BioWare for appealing to the multiplayer market. When BioWare Montreal started hiring for a multiplayer programmer, that was the exact reaction that erupted from many people on the forum over Mass Effect 3, despite the fact that all of it was pure speculation.

[quote]Kalfear wrote...

[quote]RageGT wrote...

By such definition, Ecael, GTA series is RPG, Just Cause is RPG, everything is RPG. WoW is RPG! hahahahaha

As for the banning that some sheep-troll suggested, I would love to know why would someone be banned for posting intelligent arguments, even if not approved by the sheep-troll.[/quote]

LOL, save your breath Rage.

Ecael and her passive aggresive nonsense and made up opinions stated as facts will get you no where.
You say up and prove it, she casually dismisses your well through arguement and says down with a graph or partial quote taken totally out of context!

Make her look foolish (which many have, and she gets her good freind to lock thread.

I just hope Bioware smart enough to realize those that question everything are their target audience. Chances are the Ecaels and Alanc9s and LPPrinces wont even buy the games anyways, they just here to argue and annoy you to utter fustration. The people worried about the games are the ones that play and enjoy the products and feel attatched to those products. Obviously by their willingness to have everything changed, the troll crowd felt no connection to the games to begin with and wanted something else.

Time will tell if Bioware does realize the truth of the matter OR if the cyber ego stroking of those that blindly rubber stamp every little move they do is what they enjoy![/quote]
Thanks for casually dismissing my argument by calling it "passive-aggressive nonsense" and then telling us we won't buy their games.

[quote]As a long time manager of bussinesses, id much rather hear passionate and intellegent comments (even negative) then just someone saying "In "so and so" we blindly trust".[/quote][/quote]
There is so much irony in this last sentence that it's unbelievable.

[quote]Talof wrote...

Roleplaying is not defined through the medium you use to roleplay. Its simply assuming the role of a character you've created plain and simple. if you have a predefined character its not roleplaying that would be closer to pretending or mimicry than roleplaying.[/quote]
Then no video game is an RPG because you can't fully assume direct control of your character. Your character has always been predefined by the game developer, who essentially acts as the Game Master without question.

Once a game is released, getting that Game Master to change their rules as a single player out of a million is extremely difficult. As Stanley Woo mentioned before, even though fans can provide suggestions, the decisions fall to the people making the game.

Modifié par Ecael, 13 juillet 2010 - 12:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

I will always prefer voiced protagonists from here on. Seeing Shepard SPEAK was a huge impact on me. I don't know about you, but I felt that was the voice of Richard Shepard, my Shepard.

Did you just have the one?

I find the problem really does drive itself home when you try to play a second character who is very different from the first one.

But beyond that, did he still feel like he was your Shepard when he'd say things you didn't expect or want him to say?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 juillet 2010 - 12:40 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But beyond that, did he still feel like he was your Shepard when he'd say things you didn't expect or want him to say?

That's quite a loaded question.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

I will always prefer voiced protagonists from here on. Seeing Shepard SPEAK was a huge impact on me. I don't know about you, but I felt that was the voice of Richard Shepard, my Shepard.

Did you just have the one?

I find the problem really does drive itself home when you try to play a second character who is very different from the first one.

But beyond that, did he still feel like he was your Shepard when he'd say things you didn't expect or want him to say?

That's my point. When I was first playing Mass Effect I didn't have any memories about footage of the game or how Shepard would sound. Then when I heard him was really an unique experience and surprising because I was expecting a silent protagonist.
And as I said before, Bioware really handled it well. Although Shepard says things differently from the dialogue wheel, the "message" is the same. I never felt that what Shepard said or did, contradicted what was implied on the dialogue wheel and what I wanted him to do. Everytime I could understand Richard Shepard did things the way I would chose given that options.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 13 juillet 2010 - 01:21 .

[Senliati]

I am also cautiously concerned... On one hand, I *LOVE* all the BioWare games and they seem unable to create a game that is not awesome. And with others I would love to continue my Wardens from DA1, but I can let them go....

With others on this thread, I am much more concerned about the *type* of game Dragon Age will be. Please, BioWare, hold to your promise that the Dragon Age franchise will be continuing the legacy of Baldur's Gate, a deep, rich, immersive, wide-ranging true RPG experience. Make it better, make it prettier, make it the best RPG it can be, but don't just turn it into another Mass-Effect-esque hybrid. Now, I passionately enjoy the Mass Effect games, can't get enough of them, but Dragon Age has its own flavor, purpose, and audience, and I hope they are true to that.

And they could also keep the DA/NWN etc game mechanics. My quadripalegic brother plays DA, and he can because of the way it works. He cannot play Mass Effect, and I wonder whether he will be able to play DA2... Anyway, I hope that BioWare keeps the best of Dragon Age and makes it better, but still unique.

Modifié par Senliati, 13 juillet 2010 - 01:33 .

[Leanansidhe]

I'm probably sticking my hand in the hornet nest, but I'll chime in.  You see, I'm one of those people who has been a long time fan of BioWare, but very rarely post in the forums.  I read them every day, but I have probably posted less then 15 times in the last 10 years.  Point being, I'm a fan, but not one of the 'vocal minority.'

With that said, I've enjoyed every single one of BioWare's games.  Not because I was in love with MY character, but because I was in love with all of  the characters around me.  I know it means a lot to others, but it doesn't matter to me that my character will be, in some small fashion, predetermined for me. 

I buy multiple copies of all of their games because I love Alistair, Garrus, Kaidan, Leliana, Jeheira, Anomen (yes, it's true!) Valen, and many, many others.  I buy these games because I can't stand Zevran, Morrigan, Ashley, Edwin, Bastila, Gao the Lesser,  and many others.  All of these characters breathe life into worlds that would seem stale and sterile if it were just me doing my thing.

I would say "take a deep breath and chill," but I know you won't.  Just remember why you fell in love with their games.  Was it because you liked being a Grey Warden, God Child, Super Soldier, etc.?  Or was it because you fell in love with the worlds and the characters they wrote for you?  Those won't change, no matter how much they change the surface shinies.  (Oooh!  Shiny ones!)

Thanks for listening.

PS  How about Jennifer Hale for LadyHawke?  It's really strange, but my internal voice now sounds like her.  Weird, but true!