46 réponses à ce sujet

[Archereon]

Narreneth wrote...

For the last time: RPG is not in the combat. It is in the way you (as your character) interact with the game. If the combat does end up being more action-like that does not make this less of an RPG. While it does change the dynamic of combat in the RPG, and while you can dislike it as much as you want (and dislike it validly) you need to quit saying if it does get more action it's not an RPG.

What's a JRPG then, they're almost all linear.

"RPG" is a very porely defined term, verging on a misnomer.  Virtually any game made in the last decade (any game with a storyline) could be called an "RPG" , as you are stepping into a role of a character.

Games today defined as RPGs generally fall into one of 3 categories when it comes to combat.


classic styled turn based RPGs  (Many JRPGs)

Hack and Slash/Shoot em up RPGs.  (Oblivion, Diablo, Mass Effect, Fallout)

The myraid possibilities which fall in between.  (Dragon Age for example)


The shared elements between the two polar opposite cateogires generally are as follows:

-A focus on player "spells" or talents in combat.
-A focus on player stats.
-A focus on itemization nearing or even exceeding skill.

[TheMufflon]

slimgrin wrote...

Action RPG, or strategic RPG, it doesn't matter which it is, as long as there is depth and re-playability to the system.

Dragon Age: Origins isn't strategic, it's tactical.

If I remember correctly someone posted that the GI articel stated that combat gampley would remain the same on PC, but would be changed in the console versions. Which, from what I've heard about the console versions of DA:O, seems like a good thing.

[Altima Darkspells]

In Exile wrote...


Most of all, there's already a Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate 2.  There is simply no need for Dragon Age 2 to go in that direction.  Which I'm not saying it is or it isn't.  

Yes, because, clearly, Baldur's Gate series is fresh enough in everyone's mind to count.  I mean, it's not like it's almost a decade old with aging graphics and compatability issues up the wazoo requiring multiple third party patches to play, right?

And certainly Baldur's Gate has a sequel in the works by BioWare at this very minute.

Oh wait. 

But you know what game has all those things?  Mass Effect.

My point still stands--there is already a ME.  Hell, ME2 just came out this year.  And ME3 is on the way.  There is no reason for DA2 to go in that direction.

Given the cult following of the Baldur's Gate series, and that one of Dragon Age's selling points is that it was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, I'd like to argue that, yes, the game does need to go in that direction.

[In Exile]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

But you know what game has all those things?  Mass Effect.

My point still stands--there is already a ME.  Hell, ME2 just came out this year.  And ME3 is on the way.  There is no reason for DA2 to go in that direction.

Way to miss the point. So the only thing that matters is the recency of the title? Well, Dragon Age: Origins came out just this year! Thankfully, Bioware is following your wise advice and is going to avoid producing a redundant title. Great, no?

All of this self-righteous entitled indignation is silly. Having a sense of entitlement toward game development is... well, weird.

As of right now, the only thing we know about DA2 is that there is VO. We don't know how this is being implement aside from the fact it will be a variant of the dialogue wheel. We know that as of right now, PC combat is unchaged. We know that in some way, console combat will be altered.

None of this points to 1) DA2 becoming more like ME2 (or ME1 for that matter) or 2) that ME2 was any less of an RPG (or that ME1 was an RPG, for that matter).

Given the cult following of the Baldur's Gate series, and that one of Dragon Age's selling points is that it was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, I'd like to argue that, yes, the game does need to go in that direction.

Except that Dragon Age: Origins was never marketed based on any connection to BG2.

Let's put it another way: given the non-cult following of Mass Effect, and the fact that Mass Effect outsold Dragon Age... that should have no impact on any decision to change or not change the Dragon Age design.

I like to put it the way Bioware put it on the old dragon age forum (when people were complaining about the lack of 2D profiles, or the fact that there was no mysterious stranger origin): Bioware will design what they think is a good game, not what others demand a game should have. And then will see if that game is sucessful. Usually Bioware is quite good at designing games that are perceived as good.This isn't some vapid, 'trust Bioware' post, but a 'get-off your entitled high-horse' one.

[Kalfear]

Narreneth wrote...

For the last time: RPG is not in the combat. It is in the way you (as your character) interact with the game. If the combat does end up being more action-like that does not make this less of an RPG. While it does change the dynamic of combat in the RPG, and while you can dislike it as much as you want (and dislike it validly) you need to quit saying if it does get more action it's not an RPG.

Well your kinda right

RPG is not in the combat. RPG focuses on story, immersion, interaction. Combat (good or bad) runs a distant 5th in importance.

ME2 fails as a RPG because ME2 is all about the combat first and formost. The original story and interaction and immersion was cut up and dumbed down in ME2 from the original and combat became the driving focus.
Thats why people say ME2 is a Shooter with a back story. And thats what it was.
ME1 however was about story, immersion, interaction first and formost. The combat was just a means to a end to solve conflicts CREATED BY STORY FIRST.

So the level of combat in a RPG doesnt matter, the quality of combat in a RPG doesnt matter, its a after thought to the important aspects of a RPG. When you ignore and downplay those RPG elements is when you stop being a RPG!

DA:O was awsome cause of its back story, its rich depth of immersion. If DA2 suddenly has no backstory and immersion and its just travel from 1 combat to the next because the game forces you to for no real reason, then DA2 will not be a RPG really either.
You can have good combat in a RPG, I think the combat in DA:O was excellent myself. Far more interesting then ME2 or FO3 headshot galleryfest boring shootfest. But STORY is what DA:O is all about. Thats never going to change. Im hoping since DA2 has the original writing staff this stays true for this next installment even with the new "improved (debatable)" mechanics like the dialog wheel.

[DasWarden]

angj57 wrote...

You people are ridiculous. I do share some concerns about DA2, but the constant ME2 bashing basically shows Bioware one thing-- they can make a hugely sucessful, well-liked, and critically acclaimed game and a lot of their most vocal fans will hate it, so they might as well ignore them. There weren't any rpg options in ME1 that were removed in ME2.  There was a different tone, yes, but some fans who didn't want the tone to change have thrown temper tantrums on the forums that were completely unjustified.

The "shooter" aspect of ME2 not only has nothing to do with role playing, it also was present in ME1. Furthermore new aspects of the game, like the ambiguous organization you work for, gave you more opportunities to role play than the straight forward goals and organization in the original.

Nice.. I dont know what RPG elements they eliminated either.. I felt like it was a sequel.. a definite upgrade to my experience and I felt nothing dissapear.. possibly taking out the Mako explorations but that doesnt determine whether or not a game is rpg-esque. People are so hung up on their perfect vision of a game but wont lift a finger to change anything. They just complain and go on to the next game.. I voiced by opinions to a lead designer for the Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit game. I told them that they should keep their fighting system and give me a character creator.. I dont know if he listened to me but.. I actually spoke to one of them..

[AlanC9]

Altima Darkspells wrote...
Yes, because, clearly, Baldur's Gate series is fresh enough in everyone's mind to count.  I mean, it's not like it's almost a decade old with aging graphics and compatability issues up the wazoo requiring multiple third party patches to play, right?

Is that a Vista thing? I'm running BG this very second on XP.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

RPG is a blanket term that doesn't mean much of anything because it describes such a broad selection of games with very little in common.

Quick, what's the difference between Mass Effect 2 that makes it an RPG and something like STALKER which is a shooter with RPG elements? The answer: Marketing. Bioware is known and thinks of themselves as an RPG developer, thusly anything they make is an RPG to them. Which isn't necessarily wrong since as I said: RPG is a label that the industry uses in too broad of a scope to really mean much.


EDIT:

I'm playing BGII just fine on Win7, although I'm not sure how BGI fares.

Modifié par ITSSEXYTIME, 14 juillet 2010 - 05:17 .

[hexaligned]

AlanC9 wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...
Yes, because, clearly, Baldur's Gate series is fresh enough in everyone's mind to count.  I mean, it's not like it's almost a decade old with aging graphics and compatability issues up the wazoo requiring multiple third party patches to play, right?

Is that a Vista thing? I'm running BG this very second on XP.

*shrugs* I have BG2 installed on Win 7x64 and I didn't do anything special besides the widescreen mod.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Even if the combat on console does become more action-based, it should be compared to JE rather than ME.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 14 juillet 2010 - 05:29 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

slimgrin wrote...

Some pretty angry campers around these parts. 

People who like the game have nothing to complain about, so you won't see many of them posting.

[Massadonious1]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

And I'm pretty sure many of Bioware's original fans hate all of their games because they don't have mechs in them

Indeed.

[AlanC9]

relhart wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...
Yes, because, clearly, Baldur's Gate series is fresh enough in everyone's mind to count.  I mean, it's not like it's almost a decade old with aging graphics and compatability issues up the wazoo requiring multiple third party patches to play, right?

Is that a Vista thing? I'm running BG this very second on XP.

*shrugs* I have BG2 installed on Win 7x64 and I didn't do anything special besides the widescreen mod.

Yeah, i had a feeling it was nonsense.

[SithLordExarKun]

Kalfear wrote...


ME2 fails as a RPG because ME2 is all about the combat first and formost. The original story and interaction and immersion was cut up and dumbed down in ME2 from the original and combat became the driving focus.
Thats why people say ME2 is a Shooter with a back story. And thats what it was.
ME1 however was about story, immersion, interaction first and formost. The combat was just a means to a end to solve conflicts CREATED BY STORY FIRST.

You really cant stop bashing ME2 cant you?

[AlanC9]

I presume that was a rhetorical question.

[Massadonious1]

The ME boards have become a bit slower since this one opened up. People are just finding a way to hate by exention on the faster moving forums.



"DA2 has dynamic combat, well, ME2 had something like that! Let me list all the bad things about ME2 that DA2 might turn in to."

[Jigero]

Kalfear wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

For the last time: RPG is not in the combat. It is in the way you (as your character) interact with the game. If the combat does end up being more action-like that does not make this less of an RPG. While it does change the dynamic of combat in the RPG, and while you can dislike it as much as you want (and dislike it validly) you need to quit saying if it does get more action it's not an RPG.

Well your kinda right

RPG is not in the combat. RPG focuses on story, immersion, interaction. Combat (good or bad) runs a distant 5th in importance.

ME2 fails as a RPG because ME2 is all about the combat first and formost. The original story and interaction and immersion was cut up and dumbed down in ME2 from the original and combat became the driving focus.
Thats why people say ME2 is a Shooter with a back story. And thats what it was.
ME1 however was about story, immersion, interaction first and formost. The combat was just a means to a end to solve conflicts CREATED BY STORY FIRST.

So the level of combat in a RPG doesnt matter, the quality of combat in a RPG doesnt matter, its a after thought to the important aspects of a RPG. When you ignore and downplay those RPG elements is when you stop being a RPG!

DA:O was awsome cause of its back story, its rich depth of immersion. If DA2 suddenly has no backstory and immersion and its just travel from 1 combat to the next because the game forces you to for no real reason, then DA2 will not be a RPG really either.
You can have good combat in a RPG, I think the combat in DA:O was excellent myself. Far more interesting then ME2 or FO3 headshot galleryfest boring shootfest. But STORY is what DA:O is all about. Thats never going to change. Im hoping since DA2 has the original writing staff this stays true for this next installment even with the new "improved (debatable)" mechanics like the dialog wheel.

Sorry that's just flat out bull****, ME1 was far worst in terms of story then ME2 and it all revoled around combat. Every mission in ME1 was "run in shoot bad guys, sort **** out later" atleast in ME2 there was entire missions where you never even picked up a gun, or killed a guy. Thre was more verity in what you did too beyond just shooting people, even with shooting people there was more verity in that too. Not to mention the mission that had any real RP where what? all of less then 15 hours in length then the rest of the time your running around killing the same generic bad guys for 30+ missions and driving around on barren rocks?

you people make it seem like the more Generic, rehased and flat out un orginal a game is the more of a RPG it is. Nothing in DA:O was orignal, compelling or immersive and it basicly did nothing out standing. It had no cinematic feel that Mass Effect had. Combat I've seen 100 times before, Hideous art style, A main villian that was about as 2D as a piece of paper, a stripped down template of a plot  barrowed from Mass Effect, Snooze fest of a class System, A mute main character who just patamimed, Charaters who where about as intresting as rubbing ones face on a cheese grater (I thought the damn dog was more intresting then the entire cast) and To top it off, voice acting that made me wanna stab babies, if left like I was watch a grade school profomance of Hamlet.

Modifié par Jigero, 14 juillet 2010 - 07:01 .

[Haexpane]

If it's in the game, it's in the game! - EA tagline



You know, like Old Spice and Reeses Pieces, totally core football elements

[Tollak_Grippsson]

Again, I APOLOGIZE for starting this thread.

[joriandrake]

Narreneth wrote...

Wishpig wrote...

Lol, I always thought the fight like a Spartan line was stupid. I don't see my Hawke running around in a thong stabbing people with a spear. Although hopefully I will get to kick someone into a bottomless pit.

Yeah, I don't think it was meant to be taken quite that literally.

seeing screenshots now about Hawke I would say he looks like a crossbreed of Shepard and that guy from 300 so maybe that is all about the "fight like a spartan" line

[dan_12345]

WingsandRings wrote...

All I care about with the combat system is that how well my PC fights is based on HER skills, not mine. The flaw for me with ME (never played ME2) is that Shepard was a fragging Space Marine, and yet since I can't aim worth crap she was a terrible shot. From an RPG perspective, that just doesn't make sense.

Wow, very well said. You expressed something I've been fumbling to understand for a long time. This is exactly what I hate about action "RPGs" or any other kind of "RPG" that really relies on player skills instead of character skills. A big reason why Mass Effect was such a disappointment for me, and why I didn't bother with ME2, either.

It's such a joke that companies can get away labeling all of these shooters and action games as RPGs.

I too hope DA2 does not go down this path any further. Already I think the WoW style combat it uses is a big step back from D&D combat in terms of role playing.

[epoch_]

Yes, it has everyone worried.