101 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

Using system A is not homogonizing, while using system b is?

[R-F]

As someone who loves the Mass Effect series i have no problem with Dragon Age implementing my favourite part of that franchise...voice acting for the player. I was always bothered by the mute player characters, takes me right out of the game.

[Alex Strekal]

It seems like the actual concept of an RPG is slowly dissapearing in general. D&D 4.0 is practically modeled after MMO's, making it much more hack-n-slash, removing much of the actual RP elements and "balancing" the classes in a way that makes all of them just damage dealers with different aesthetic flavors. The videogames that are being released contain less and less (and sometimes no) dialogue and meaingful interaction within the game world. When Dragon Age was released, it seemed to be an example of a genuine RPG, with lots of immersive dialogue and a multitude of possible choices. But everything that has been released in the "franchise" after that has slowly cut out the RP element and limited the player's options, which is severely dissapointing for those of us who want a genuine RPG. While there's nothing wrong with tweaking things and adding additional elements to a game, it shouldn't be done at the expense of the actual RPG elements of the game.  

Modifié par Alex Strekal, 18 juillet 2010 - 04:21 .

[errant_knight]

Alex Strekal wrote...

It seems like the actual concept of an RPG is slowly dissapearing in general. D&D 4.0 is practically modeled after MMO's, making it much more hack-n-slash, removing much of the actual RP elements and "balancing" the classes in a way that makes all of them just damage dealers with different aesthetic flavors. The videogames that are being released contain less and less (and sometimes no) dialogue and meaingful interaction within the game world. When Dragon Age was released, it seemed to be an example of a genuine RPG, with lots of immersive dialogue. But everything that has been released in the "franchise" after that has slowly cut out the RP element, which is severely dissapointing for those of us who want a genuine RPG.  

To be fair, the first couple of DLC were pretty good. RtO and after seemed to be when they started running from the RPG elements.

[Bryy_Miller]

DA:O DLC is in no way connected to the actual game anymore.

[Alex Strekal]

"To be fair, the first couple of DLC were pretty good. RtO and after seemed to be when they started running from the RPG elements."

Well, I'm primarily refering to Awakenings, which was very dissapointing for me. I'm not particularly refering to DLC. Now that I'm seeing the information for Dragon Age 2, the dissapointment only increases. In my mind, part of what makes an RPG an RPG is immersive dialogue and character options. Awakenings more or less eliminated the dialogue, and it appears that DA2 is going to severely limit character options. I really liked the idea of "origins", so the idea of being forced into a single path bothers me. To make matters worse, it gets rid of race selection. That takes away from the replayability factor significantly. And if they are going to continue down the path they did in Awakenings as far as dialogue is concerned, that really cuts out a significant chunk of the RP element.

I would really like to see RPG's with modern technology and engines that have the kind of strong RP flavor that a game like Planescape: Torment did. Dragon Age: Origins was probably the closest thing to that I've seen for a while, but it seems to be going in the opposite direction of that, even though it was originally sold as being precisely that. I like games to be epic (while the new standard seems to quicken things) and immersive (and I can't get immersed if I'm just being pushed along a completely linear path and have no real oppurtunity to take on a unique role and explore the world at my own pace). DA:O was pretty epic, while Awakenings was over before I could get immersed in it. I at least hope that DA 2 is epic.

Maybe, just maybe, this "Hawke" character will be somewhat like the Nameless One, I.E. while you must play as the Nameless One no matter what, you define who the Nameless One is through your choices in the game. But if they don't adequately do something like that, then it seems like you're basically being given a nearly completely pre-set character (class choice not withstanding). And that would be really lame. I was anticipating Dragon Age 2 to continue with the "origins" system, having some origins unique to it (maybe an apostate origin or something?) and maybe adding an additional race (like the giants; my frozen brain can't conjure the name atm). But they appear to have gone the opposite direction and limited things.

Modifié par Alex Strekal, 18 juillet 2010 - 04:37 .

[Addai]

errant_knight wrote...

Alex Strekal wrote...

It seems like the actual concept of an RPG is slowly dissapearing in general. D&D 4.0 is practically modeled after MMO's, making it much more hack-n-slash, removing much of the actual RP elements and "balancing" the classes in a way that makes all of them just damage dealers with different aesthetic flavors. The videogames that are being released contain less and less (and sometimes no) dialogue and meaingful interaction within the game world. When Dragon Age was released, it seemed to be an example of a genuine RPG, with lots of immersive dialogue. But everything that has been released in the "franchise" after that has slowly cut out the RP element, which is severely dissapointing for those of us who want a genuine RPG.  

To be fair, the first couple of DLC were pretty good. RtO and after seemed to be when they started running from the RPG elements.

Agree with everything Alex Strekal said.  Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner were parts of the original game, if I remember correctly, and were sold as DLC in order to discourage pirating.  So RtO was the first real DLC. And as far as I'm concerned, it was not up to par and none of the releases since have been, either.  I keep waiting for the releases to get back to the things that made me love the game, and with all the disappointments was thinking "well it's just the DLC teams, the original teams are busy, the sequel will get back to business."

Maybe not so much.

[errant_knight]

Alex Strekal wrote...

"To be fair, the first couple of DLC were pretty good. RtO and after seemed to be when they started running from the RPG elements."

Well, I'm primarily refering to Awakenings, which was very dissapointing for me. I'm not particularly refering to DLC. Now that I'm seeing the information for Dragon Age 2, the dissapointment only increases. In my mind, part of what makes an RPG an RPG is immersive dialogue and character options. Awakenings more or less eliminated the dialogue, and it appears that DA2 is going to severely limit character options. I really liked the idea of "origins", so the idea of being forced into a single path bothers me. To make matters worse, it gets rid of race selection. That takes away from the replayability factor significantly. And if they are going to continue down the path they did in Awakenings as far as dialogue is concerned, that really cuts out a significant chunk of the RP element.

I would really like to see RPG's with modern technology and engines that have the kind of strong RP flavor that a game like Planescape: Torment did. Dragon Age: Origins was probably the closest thing to that I've seen for a while, but it seems to be going in the opposite direction of that, even though it was originally sold as being precisely that. I like games to be epic (while the new standard seems to quicken things) and immersive (and I can't get immersed if I'm just being pushed along a completely linear path and have no real oppurtunity to take on a unique role and explore the world at my own pace). DA:O was pretty epic, while Awakenings was over before I could get immersed in it. I at least hope that DA 2 is epic.

Maybe, just maybe, this "Hawke" character will be somewhat like the Nameless One, I.E. while you must play as the Nameless One no matter what, you define who the Nameless One is through your choices in the game. But if they don't adequately do something like that, then it seems like you're basically being given a nearly completely pre-set character (class choice not withstanding). And that would be really lame. I was anticipating Dragon Age 2 to continue with the "origins" system, having some origins unique to it (maybe an apostate origin or something?) and maybe adding an additional race (like the giants; my frozen brain can't conjure the name atm). But they appear to have gone the opposite direction and limited things.

I felt the same way about Awakening, and found the limited dialogue very off putting. In a way it worked. There was my PC alone in Amaranthine, away from her husband and friends (except for one who was always drunk and turned out to be the kind of guy who'd abandon his child), dealing with this awful situation while living in the home of her dead worst enemy. Alienation kind of worked. On the other hand, it made the disappointment when Alistair never returned, after saying he would all the more bitter. Poor PC. She was a sad and lonely woman.... And to have such a pyrrhic victory.... There were parts I enjoyed, but I can't say I found it fun. More like 'Maker! I need to solve this and get the hell (oh wait, no hell ) out of Amaranthine!'

While I really, really regret the loss of character choice, I can also see that they might want to tell a particular story--but I felt a lot more okay about that before I read all those statements about veering away from traditional first person RPGs. There's a point where moving away may be necessary, but not one game in, and not after less than a year--far less if you count that this path began with RtO, and it's lack of meaningful dialogue about events that demanded it.

So, yes, it's very unfortunate. It may be because I generally play a human that I find it so much easier to deal with than the dialogue wheel, or the new graphic style, though. It's a bit like we're playing just one origin. It won't be as replayable, you're right, but I've played repeated Couslands of both sexes with great enjoyment each time. For me, this part, the character, depends on the story. I know that will be good. What I don't know is if there will be enough dialogue for me to really care, as with Origins, or if i'll just want to go home, as with Awakening.

Modifié par errant_knight, 18 juillet 2010 - 05:32 .

[Addai]

I am wondering if given the ten year time span, you will have followers cycling in and out of your party.  In other words, leaving the story.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 juillet 2010 - 05:18 .

[wickedwizzard01]

errant_knight wrote...

The more I read of what's being said about this, the more disturbed I get. Everything points to it being a third person action game with a veneer of RPG on top.

i do hope that you will be wrong about this but it sure seems like your not
guess all we can do is wait and see:bandit:
 

[joriandrake]

Addai67 wrote...

I am wondering if given the ten year time span, you will have followers cycling in and out of your party.  In other words, leaving the story.

good question, in ten years an adventurer could be part of five or more totally different parties easily, it wouldn't be surprising to meet former team members later on opposite sites in some missions

[joriandrake]

Addai67 wrote...

I am wondering if given the ten year time span, you will have followers cycling in and out of your party.  In other words, leaving the story.

good question, in ten years an adventurer could be part of five or more totally different parties easily, it wouldn't be surprising to meet former team members later on opposite sites in some missions

[errant_knight]

wickedwizzard01 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

The more I read of what's being said about this, the more disturbed I get. Everything points to it being a third person action game with a veneer of RPG on top.

i do hope that you will be wrong about this but it sure seems like your not
guess all we can do is wait and see:bandit:
 

You know how some people always want to be right? Me, not so much.

[joriandrake]

errant_knight wrote...

wickedwizzard01 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

The more I read of what's being said about this, the more disturbed I get. Everything points to it being a third person action game with a veneer of RPG on top.

i do hope that you will be wrong about this but it sure seems like your not
guess all we can do is wait and see:bandit:
 

You know how some people always want to be right? Me, not so much.

the annoying is, DA1 was already placed by PEGI into "action" category when it got rated if I am not wrong about this

[errant_knight]

joriandrake wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

wickedwizzard01 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

The more I read of what's being said about this, the more disturbed I get. Everything points to it being a third person action game with a veneer of RPG on top.

i do hope that you will be wrong about this but it sure seems like your not
guess all we can do is wait and see:bandit:
 

You know how some people always want to be right? Me, not so much.

the annoying is, DA1 was already placed by PEGI into "action" category when it got rated if I am not wrong about this

That seems odd. I wonder what the criteria are. I mean, it had action, and lots of it, but I thought the defining features were the roleplaying and immersive character interactions. I really love the fighting in this game, though, so, who knows?

[joriandrake]

errant_knight wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

wickedwizzard01 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

The more I read of what's being said about this, the more disturbed I get. Everything points to it being a third person action game with a veneer of RPG on top.

i do hope that you will be wrong about this but it sure seems like your not
guess all we can do is wait and see:bandit:
 

You know how some people always want to be right? Me, not so much.

the annoying is, DA1 was already placed by PEGI into "action" category when it got rated if I am not wrong about this

That seems odd. I wonder what the criteria are. I mean, it had action, and lots of it, but I thought the defining features were the roleplaying and immersive character interactions. I really love the fighting in this game, though, so, who knows?

I don't know but in the past there were already "mishaps" made by raters, but that was not PEGI I think, in which case a game got rated for things that only the sequel would be about. and don't ask how they could have rated a sequel before the actual first game in the franchise because about that I don't have a clue neither

[Gambient]

Vicious wrote...

A well-written wah wah I don't want my PC to be voiced I want to go back to the DAO dialogue - post.

Not happening. And the game won't suffer - they axed the origin system, which means the MAIN CAMPAIGN will get all the attention.

OP plenty of people have already made topics identical to this. I think you're being too quick to judge the dialogue wheel--it isn't exactly like Mass Effect's.

[Hollingdale]

Cazic of LFD wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Bah this is just the usual fan dogmatism crap where anything that deviates from the classic wrpg formula is automatically bad.

I honestly wish you guys would just stop judging a game on the premises of what you wanted it to be rather than what it actually is so that we could have some interesting discussions rather then the whiny pointless bull**** that theese boards are filled with.

Youre like that annoying old guy who can't stand change and who goes to the same baker everyday and asks for cinnamon buns and then gets pissed when one day the baker's making vanilla buns instead because everyone but the old guy was getting sick of just having cinnamon.

Of course being the annoying old guy you'll just say that everyone else have no taste and should be ignored so that your own desires may be fullfilled. You'll also ignore the bakers attempts to persuade you into actually trying the vanilla buns or you will try them but only so that you can say they taste like **** afterwards because you've decided beforehand that they do.

And btw, innovation is good in itself.

OMG, HOW DARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOICE THEIR OPINION ON THE INTERWEBZ!!!!1111!!1

Seriously, if you don't like what people have to say, or in this case their criticisms(which i believe are quite valid) then don't read it, no one is forcing you to.

Also, innovation is defined as, vaguely, the introduction of something new. Explain to me how the conversation wheel is new? Its not, its been around in other games and it does have its short comings but it worked fine in those games. Dragon Age is not those games. Homogenizing your products is also not innovating. All they are doing are copying some flashy and simple mechanics so it can appeal to the ADHD crowd more easily. Nothing innovating about that.

Back to the topic at hand, yes i think DA2 will suffer due to these changes. Its obvious they are dumbing down the content so it will sell more. Will it suffer enough for them to get what we traditional rpg'ers want? I doubt it.

Wow. If I made a list I'd have to put check on everything for you.

[Grommash94]

Cazic of LFD wrote...


OMG, HOW DARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOICE THEIR OPINION ON THE INTERWEBZ!!!!1111!!1

Seriously, if you don't like what people have to say, or in this case their criticisms(which i believe are quite valid) then don't read it, no one is forcing you to.

Also, innovation is defined as, vaguely, the introduction of something new. Explain to me how the conversation wheel is new? Its not, its been around in other games and it does have its short comings but it worked fine in those games. Dragon Age is not those games. Homogenizing your products is also not innovating. All they are doing are copying some flashy and simple mechanics so it can appeal to the ADHD crowd more easily. Nothing innovating about that.

Back to the topic at hand, yes i think DA2 will suffer due to these changes. Its obvious they are dumbing down the content so it will sell more. Will it suffer enough for them to get what we traditional rpg'ers want? I doubt it.

Not really. Just because you add VO and a dialogue wheel hardly means you are dumbing down the content. People need to stop jumping to conclusions, and just hold out, until BioWare releases more information.

Or, if you really don't like the game so far, then just forget about it and play something else.

Question though, Dragon Age was hardly innovative either, being a spiritual successor to BG and all. Have you considered, perhaps, that BioWare is tired of making those sort of games? 

[Hollingdale]

As I said, they want the cinnamon buns til the day they die basically.