105 réponses à ce sujet

[kraze07]

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

Modifié par kraze07, 28 juillet 2010 - 10:32 .

[Faust1979]

kraze07 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

Mass Effect 2 was awesome and the gameplay was better than the first one. Now if only the story was as good as the original it would have been better than it is. But it was still a fun game

[mdfitz2]

a fps obviously

[AlanC9]

kraze07 wrote...

 That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Plenty of people asked for a voiced protagonist.

[AllThatJazz]

kraze07 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

Then maybe this is what Bio is doing. Art. Why do so many people keep assuming that the only reason they could possibly have for the change in direction is dollars? I mean, of course it's a factor, as I'm sure that making a living is a factor for Kojima as well. But isn't it plausible that they could be trying something different for artistic, creative reasons too? Maybe the changes that they're making better fit the style of the story they want to tell. Same with creating a character from scratch. Maybe the story here just doesn't make sense if Hawke is an Elf or a Dwarf - we simply don't know enough about DA2 yet to assume that any race of character could fit the tale as well as any other. I realise that we don't know whether the opposite is true either, but again, why assume that Bio's decision to shake the format up a bit is 100% economics driven?

[Davasar]

AllThatJazz wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

Then maybe this is what Bio is doing. Art. Why do so many people keep assuming that the only reason they could possibly have for the change in direction is dollars? I mean, of course it's a factor, as I'm sure that making a living is a factor for Kojima as well. But isn't it plausible that they could be trying something different for artistic, creative reasons too? Maybe the changes that they're making better fit the style of the story they want to tell. Same with creating a character from scratch. Maybe the story here just doesn't make sense if Hawke is an Elf or a Dwarf - we simply don't know enough about DA2 yet to assume that any race of character could fit the tale as well as any other. I realise that we don't know whether the opposite is true either, but again, why assume that Bio's decision to shake the format up a bit is 100% economics driven?

This is why.

http://social.biowar...1/index/3267335

Looks pretty economically driven to me.

[AllThatJazz]

Davasar wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

kraze07 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

Then maybe this is what Bio is doing. Art. Why do so many people keep assuming that the only reason they could possibly have for the change in direction is dollars? I mean, of course it's a factor, as I'm sure that making a living is a factor for Kojima as well. But isn't it plausible that they could be trying something different for artistic, creative reasons too? Maybe the changes that they're making better fit the style of the story they want to tell. Same with creating a character from scratch. Maybe the story here just doesn't make sense if Hawke is an Elf or a Dwarf - we simply don't know enough about DA2 yet to assume that any race of character could fit the tale as well as any other. I realise that we don't know whether the opposite is true either, but again, why assume that Bio's decision to shake the format up a bit is 100% economics driven?

This is why.

http://social.biowar...1/index/3267335

Looks pretty economically driven to me.

Which is why in my post I said it is a factor. That doesn't make it the only factor. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

AndarianTD wrote...

Bioware uses the term "Story-Based Gaming" to describe what they do, and I think it's a pretty accurate term.

"RPG" (Roleplaying Game) has always had two or three meanings in the game community, and the problem is that they're not infrequently at odds with each other. What some people here are calling "old school RPG gaming" in the Baldur's Gate tradition gets a lot of its inspiration from P&P gaming, where you have a group of people sitting around with a game master that can adapt and improvise on the adventure in progress. This provides a very free-form gaming experience that allows players to feel that they're in a simulated world and can choose to do "whatever they want." Related but along similar lines is the "game mechanics" view of RPGs, where having a pile of stat-based character creation and build options to play with is considered an important if not defining aspect of an RPG.

The problem with overattachment to both of those approaches, it seems to me, is that they don't necessarily translate well to Computer-Based Gaming in general or to Story-Based Computer Gaming in particular. Arguably P&P gaming was never about telling a story in the true sense of the word. It was more about a group of people getting together in a structured and cooperative fantasy about having an adventure. For an effective story, by contrast, you need a tight and coherent plot to give the narrative a sense of drama and purpose, and you need to make the player experience conform to the needs of that plot. This kind of experience isn't really compatible with the old-school "sandbox" style desire to be able to "go anywhere and do anything I want," and it's not enhanced very much by having an overabundance of build, race, and origin options.

That's why I see these "old-school" RPG elements getting less of a focus as time goes on, especially for story-based computer gaming. For that, I see a third aspect of RP play coming to be of greater importance: what I'd loosely call Agency-Based RPG story design. Roleplay requires the player to have and be able to make effective choices; but in an interactive story that RP has to be integrated with and subservient to the plot and the needs of the drama. So you have to design a kind of "meta-plot," with purpose-driven variations and choices within it that all move events along parallel threads within that overall plot.

Whether Bioware is thinking about the evolution of story-based gaming in similar terms, I have no idea. But I do think it's important to note that such an approach does leave it open for elements and interests of story and drama to drive RP and player choice, rather than the other way around. Speaking personally, I like and prefer the "story-focused" approach to gaming, and it's one of the reasons why I like Bioware games as much as I do.

Your description of story is, I think, a bit one-dimensional.

What is a story?  I suggest that a story is a narrative.  If there is narrative, then there is a story.  But what you decribe is only one type of narrative: authored narrative.  This is the sort of narrative we find in books and movies, where the story is told to you as it was written. 

But RPG gameplay has traditionally revolved heavily around emergent narrative - that is, a story that gets written by the player through the actions and motives of his character.  BioWare's games, outside of ME, have been very kind to emergent narrative, allowing the player to experience an entirely different personal story each time he plays that game (separate from the epic story that is the authored narrative which is always the same).

As an example of this, the same player might play two different characters through the same section of a game, and those two characters might be indistinguishable by the game, but since those characters have very different motives and opinions about what's going on around them, the same authored conversation can mean very different things to them, and thus offer two very different story-based experiences.

But that only can happen within the emergent narrative.  The authored narrative, as you know, never changes without the game knowing about it, so all of those changes must have been foreseen and coded for by the developers.  Emergent narrative faces no such restriction, as the only limits are those things which are consistent with the authored narrative (not just those things contained within the authored narrative).

Every feature that makes the authored narrative more explicit leaves less room in which the emergent narrative can grow and develop.  A voiced PC imparts nuance into lines which isn't present with text dialogue, so that nuance is no longer available to the emergent narrative.  Cinematic cutscenes which draw the player's attention to specific details prevent the player from focussing on other details and making those more important within the emergent narrative.

You're too focussed on the authored narrative.  But that's not everything story-based gameplay can be.

[Bryy_Miller]

kraze07 wrote...

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second.

Wait, what? I think you need a good, healthy dose of Reality.

I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Besides the inability to pick a race, I don't see anything different from Origins.

[AndarianTD]

Some quick points on this post:

- There is no such thing as truly "emergent narrative" in a CRPG. For that, you need a creative agent to be part of the process (such as a human game master), who can creatively adapt to unplanned and unexpected contingencies. In a CRPG, all of the options and possibilities are determined ahead of time by the developer or author (and hence the narrative is by its nature authored), even if you as the player may only see one combination of them on any given playthrough.

- I'm not a proponent of the equivocation between "story" and "narrative." I maintain that story in the truly artistic and meaningful sense is plot-driven and plot-centric. It's not merely the telling of a sequence of events (a narrative), but of a purpose-driven and goal-directed sequence of events. That's why I would argue that in quality storytelling, you have to do more than just present a narrative; and that in quality computer-based interactive storytelling, the player selects from among a number of already defined plot-threads rather than co-contributing to an emergent narrative.

- The form in which you try to draw a distinction between "authored" and "emergent" narrative essentially requires the game to be sufficiently "un-specific" in its presentation of details as to allow the player to import as close to an arbitrary selection of his own goals, motives and contexts into it as possible. But in my view this is precisely what destroys a game as a meaningful storytelling experience, capable of conveying vivid ideas and evoking strong emotions in the player. To the extent that it is so unspecific, a "one-size-fits-all" narrative that lets itself be anything to anybody ends up being bland and unevocative compared to what is possible with the alternative approach.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 28 juillet 2010 - 11:28 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

kraze07 wrote...

Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second.

You're illustrating the most salient  problem in the design arguments around here: "My gaming preferences are art.  Everything else is crass commercialism."  It's not as though Dragon Age was developed by starving beatniks in someone's garage, laboring on Texas Instruments calculators with old vinyl recordings of Jack Kerouac poetry providing inspiration in the background.

Bioware's goal is always going to be to produce a game that will provide as much fun to as many people as possible, so as to convince them to give Bioware as much money as possible.  It's a healthy symbiosis.  If you find that your preferences are uncommon enough as to be unprofitable, I'm sorry.  But Bioware's failure to design to your specifications is not some sort of denial of art and culture.  I just means they think there are more people like me out there who will show approval of their design decisions with money.

[AndarianTD]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

You're illustrating the most salient  problem in the design arguments around here: "My gaming preferences are art.  Everything else is crass commercialism."

Your point is not wrong, but to be honest I think it may give too much credit to a perspective with pretentions to being "art" that I'm not sure it deserves.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 28 juillet 2010 - 09:52 .

[adi4444]

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

but they didnt say that it wont be an hack &slach game they didnt corfim that it will be tactical rpg..
i think bioware making mistek they wont to compit with diablo? they will lose dao was a sucsess!! insted to be gredee and to want to sell 10 milions copies...just make the rpg you sepuse to do ,,10 milion copies aim for me 3 not da2..da2 sould be whats it needs to be ,,,tactical single player crpg --- and not some acation game clone

the majority of peaple like games without imagination just hack&slach or shoot them kill them !! whats made bioware and black isle speical was ther uniq rpg games...i think if bioware will changed waht make them speical they wont sucseed on the countrary ...if bioware will make actions games they will lose they core fans and  peaple will prefer to  buy ather action games like diablo 3 and assinss creed 2...

[adi4444]

[quote]adi4444 wrote...

[quote]Cynical Being wrote...

[quote]adi4444 wrote...

[quote]Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.[/quote]


advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..
[/quote]

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 
[/quote]



but they didnt say that it wont be an hack &slach game they didnt corfim that it will be tactical rpg..
i think bioware making mistek they wont to compit with diablo? they will lose dao was a sucsess!! insted to be gredee and to want to sell 10 milions copies...just make the rpg you sepuse to do ,,10 milion copies aim for me 3 not da2..da2 sould be whats it needs to be ,,,tactical single player crpg --- and not some acation game clone

the majority of peaple like games without imagination just hack&slach or shoot them kill them !! whats made bioware and black isle speical was ther uniq rpg games...i think if bioware will changed waht make them speical they wont sucseed on the countrary ...if bioware will make actions games they will lose they core fans and  peaple will prefer to  buy ather action games like diablo 3 and assinss creed 2...

---is it sound good to you that in combat you will fight like some ninja and you can kill 20 mobs with  1 stike? i dont know but to me it sound like diablo or hack & slach action game..

[Kalfear]

Cynical Being wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.

advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 

So I gotta ask as you state it all over and over!

Where is this majority you speak of? In a recent interveiw one of the good doctors point blank said they do not listen to website feedback (im assuming good or bad) so where this MAJORITY you talking about and how are they getting this majority feedback to base their design changes on?

Which people didnt enjoy the origins in the first game. I sure havent read ANYONE say they didnt like the Origin aspect of the first game! So why they changing that? Doesnt really fit into your "theory" now does it!

Where and who said they wanted 1980s Dark Sun graphics over the old Origins graphics. What MAJORITY made that call?

What Majority said they wanted Mass Effect Dialog Wheel, Mass Effect 2 sold HALF the number of units as DA:O did so I would guess a MAJORITY (going by the numbers) liked the DA:O version of dialog!

WHAT Majority is winning, please show me a report that questioned every DA:O player so these majorities you keep claiming were found? 

Of course a majority of the website likes the changes, anyone with a differing veiw is attacked and ran off by the 15-20 rabid fanbois that patrol these forums. MOST of the people that could vote on your precious online polls never bother to as this place so uninviting to anyone with concerns.

I personally veiw the changes to DA:O like I veiw Coke changing Original Coke to New Coke and I "suspect" the results will be much the same as well.

But hey, you know what the MAJORITY want so please, just show me the paper work proving a REAL MAJORITY (not a paid focus group or a online poll with a couple few hundread votes) exists and were the driving points behind these changes! DA:O sold 3.2 million units so you just need to find 16,000,001 people to agree with your statements!

You dont mind if I dont hold my breath do you?

Want the actual facts, Bioware has a new company design they going towards and that what the changes (in ME and DA franchises) are about! they have been sold a bill of goods that the "mainstream" will provide bigger and better returns financially and they trying to design games that will attract those players.

Thats all, the company has changed. For long time fans, they see the subtle little differences between now and say when Mass Effect (or before) came out.

There is no secret majority, there is a "business plan" and a POTENTIAL rate of return. So far they have fallen short of the return marks but they sticking to their new business plan in hopes that over time those returns will appear and grow.

Personally I (and many others) think they making a mistake and they losing a strong and one time loyal base of customers that built them to what they are today in the hopes they can attract more "new customers" then the old ones they lose! Its all a balance sheet now. Where as once Bioware was a ground breaking independant RPG developer, now they just a studio living off its previous rep that expected to return big bucks to a organization thats been plauged with lay offs and downsizing these past few years.

The new breed can delude themselves as much as they want into thinking they a majority, personally Ill beleive it when the numbers say it. Right now they do not! 

Thats really it in a nut shell. Where as once they were all about the product, now they all about the zeros. I dont think EA this big massive evil devil org like many others do but I do think the buy out has robbed Bioware of its creative soul! 

I hope im wrong, and ill continue to check up on this product in the hopes I am wrong and this will be as ground breaking as DA:O was, but based on the work they been doing (ive already wrote off buying ME3 even though ME1 is my #1 game of all time) and the products they been putting out (ME2 was junk, assorted DLC is overpriced junk ), im not. Sadly im not.

Modifié par Kalfear, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:01 .

[Massadonious1]

Half of 3.2 million is 16 million?

[adi4444]

they sayd it will not be a hack & slach game? thats a relife

waht about action game with some rpg elemnts in it? ME2 style...me is not rpg..more like shoter with some rpg elements

i am not whining but i am very worried you know what i will wait and see what the length of this game be its very importent also if it will be the same amount as dao was or even longer than its great if it will be in the same amount THAT ME was than you can see yourself what the direction of this game is going to be....\\\\



combat also worries me..fight like a ninja kill 20 mobs with 1 strike....action game? or tactical rpg? the devs keep silent they dont tell us hard core fans anything they just going around and around.. say stuff like its not hack & slach game..so what is it than??

whats the problem to tell us exacly if its the tactical crpg we wants or some action game ME style with rpg elements...they wants the hard core fans ?who made them what they are or they wants new ons? the mainstreem.. they cant dance on two wadings....

[adi4444]

[quote]Cynical Being wrote...

[quote]adi4444 wrote...

[quote]adi4444 wrote...

[quote]Cynical Being wrote...

[quote]adi4444 wrote...

[quote]Cynical Being wrote...

This whole conversation gets a little ridiculous after awhile. We all might as well break out some dice and start playing some D&D, I'll go get my Gnome Sorcerer and we can all be happy.
No. With everything advancing, so will the RPGs of today. What matters is what is inside the damn game, not some label it's given by people wishing for "the good ol' days" where "true gamers" were.[/quote]


advance to what? some crp cations games with great grphics and without imagination thats advence???

thats bulls....t

what do you think the rpg of today should advance to?
to became more like diablo? or more like ME?  thats advance? you dont know what you talking about sorry man,..
[/quote]

Maybe "advance" was the wrong term to use, because that may not apply to you. How about change? They are changing to what the majority of gamers want, that is how a company makes money. Not by going to individual people and making a game based on the wishes of one person. They are attempting to fix what people don't enjoy and keep what the majority does.If you simply want a game based on what you think would entertain YOU.. Goodluck.

But here the majority will win every time. So don't act like they are taking away all what Origins was and starting anew. You don't have the information to make the assumptions you are. From what BioWare HAS said they are actually keeping many of the same things in this game. Of course you probably don't believe what they are saying anyway, so why am I typing this? 
[/quote]



but they didnt say that it wont be an hack &slach game they didnt corfim that it will be tactical rpg..
i think bioware making mistek they wont to compit with diablo? they will lose dao was a sucsess!! insted to be gredee and to want to sell 10 milions copies...just make the rpg you sepuse to do ,,10 milion copies aim for me 3 not da2..da2 sould be whats it needs to be ,,,tactical single player crpg --- and not some acation game clone

the majority of peaple like games without imagination just hack&slach or shoot them kill them !! whats made bioware and black isle speical was ther uniq rpg games...i think if bioware will changed waht make them speical they wont sucseed on the countrary ...if bioware will make actions games they will lose they core fans and  peaple will prefer to  buy ather action games like diablo 3 and assinss creed 2...

---is it sound good to you that in combat you will fight like some ninja and you can kill 20 mobs with  1 stike? i dont know but to me it sound like diablo or hack & slach action game..[/quote]

What are you even rambling about? You think I want some hack and slash, tedious game to play ? No! Neither does everyone else I have talked to about this. And I have found in COUNTLESS areas, and interviews saying all the same thing "This will not be a hack and slash game!!" One being here -  http://rpgcodex.net/...ails.php?id=466 They are simply improving on things their audience didn't like, that is what they HAVE said. Almost everything atleast sounds good, but for some reason people like you insist are trying to act like this is going to be nothing like Origins on some basis of fear! You act like they are forsaking the very base of their games, when you don't even have enough information about it.

I admit, I too am a little afraid about what Bioware is aiming for when they talk about more blood and explosions, but you are taking this whole thing too far. Wait for more information before you go around crying about how this "Diablo 3" will be a terrible game to play. You remind me of that damn guy in Lothering, in Origins, screaming about the darkspawn and how everything is about to go to Hell. "Someone, please shut his mouth??"
[/quote]

they sayd it will not be a hack & slach game? thats a relife

waht about action game with some rpg elemnts in it? ME2 style...me is not rpg..more like shoter with some rpg elements

i am not whining but i am very worried you know what i will wait and see what the length of this game be its very importent also if it will be the same amount as dao was or even longer than its great if it will be in the same amount THAT ME was than you can see yourself what the direction of this game is going to be....\\\\\\\\



combat also worries me..fight like a ninja kill 20 mobs with 1 strike....action game? or tactical rpg? the devs keep silent they dont tell us hard core fans anything they just going around and around.. say stuff like its not hack & slach game..so what is it than??

whats the problem to tell us exacly if its the tactical crpg we wants or some action game ME style with rpg elements...they wants the hard core fans ?who made them what they are or they wants new ons? the mainstreem.. they cant dance on two wadings...

[adi4444]

[/quote]
So I gotta ask as you state it all over and over!

Where is this majority you speak of? In a recent interveiw one of the good doctors point blank said they do not listen to website feedback (im assuming good or bad) so where this MAJORITY you talking about and how are they getting this majority feedback to base their design changes on?

Which people didnt enjoy the origins in the first game. I sure havent read ANYONE say they didnt like the Origin aspect of the first game! So why they changing that? Doesnt really fit into your "theory" now does it!

Where and who said they wanted 1980s Dark Sun graphics over the old Origins graphics. What MAJORITY made that call?

What Majority said they wanted Mass Effect Dialog Wheel, Mass Effect 2 sold HALF the number of units as DA:O did so I would guess a MAJORITY (going by the numbers) liked the DA:O version of dialog!

WHAT Majority is winning, please show me a report that questioned every DA:O player so these majorities you keep claiming were found? 

Of course a majority of the website likes the changes, anyone with a differing veiw is attacked and ran off by the 15-20 rabid fanbois that patrol these forums. MOST of the people that could vote on your precious online polls never bother to as this place so uninviting to anyone with concerns.

I personally veiw the changes to DA:O like I veiw Coke changing Original Coke to New Coke and I "suspect" the results will be much the same as well.

But hey, you know what the MAJORITY want so please, just show me the paper work proving a REAL MAJORITY (not a paid focus group or a online poll with a couple few hundread votes) exists and were the driving points behind these changes! DA:O sold 3.2 million units so you just need to find 16,000,001 people to agree with your statements!

You dont mind if I dont hold my breath do you?[/quote]


You are right. I must have been completely mistaken. The reason that ME2 sold less copies was based only on the dialog wheel! So Dragon Age 2 should have a dialog tree instead, and a mute character as well, because I know not a single person didn't like that. But talking about Mass Effect 2, how about we compare that to Dragon Age since they are about the same game! Why not try comparing Mass Effect with Mass Effect 2, obviously.

The MAJORITY  I speak of is the pool of gamers that play BioWare games. Is that not why BioWare has people in the forums..? David Gaider, Chris Priestly..? They must just have these things completely for our benefit though.

I assume you have all the art in DA2 I guess and based on your opinion we can proceed, so again I am wrong. But I will have to wait for more information I guess, excuse us who live in the present where only a few wallpapers have been shown.

About the origin stories, here Greg Zeschuck talked about why they decided to make you human. http://www.vg247.com...-triple-a-trap/ It has some important to Dragon Age 2, besides that, we don't know.

I advise actually WAITING until the game comes out , or until we have more information to make absurd comments and accusations about it. Thats just me however, since you would much rather rant about how it will suck, be my guest. Why not go play some other game if you want?
[/quote]


you dont understand ha? we didnt say that it will suck!! it will be a good action game with rpg elemnts in it

but it will not be the tactical rpg we want...bioware wants to sell games to the mainstreem ok make action games ...but they forget the hard core fans that made bioware what they are today..
if da2 will ba action oriented with rpg elemnts they will lose me and i am shore a lot more hard core fans,...
so they gain the mainstreen peaple but lose they hard core fans..whats more importent?

Modifié par adi4444, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:55 .

[adi4444]

[quote]Cynical Being wrote...


Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?
[/quote]

"Dragon Age 2 is as much about keeping worked well from Origins as addressing what didn't." You don't have to believe what has been said. Thats all between you and GameInformer. Maybe you mean things you had a problem with..?

I'm really not in the mood to argue at the moment.  
[/quote]


ok how do you explain the ninja move with 1 strike 20 mobs dead?? what improve in this??
why the devs keep silent and dont conform that it will be the tactical rpg that  it sopuld be?
i want to belive but sadly i dont see a reason to..

Modifié par adi4444, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:54 .

[adi4444]

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...


Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

"Dragon Age 2 is as much about keeping worked well from Origins as addressing what didn't." You don't have to believe what has been said. Thats all between you and GameInformer. Maybe you mean things you had a problem with..?

I'm really not in the mood to argue at the moment.  

i am realy not arguing just sadly from what weve seen its a fact that this game will be action oriented
ok how do you explain the ninja move with 1 strike 20 mobs dead?? what improve in this??
why the devs keep silent and dont conform that it will be the tactical rpg that  it sopuld be?
i want to belive but sadly i dont see a reason to..

[adi4444]

adi4444 wrote...

adi4444 wrote...

Cynical Being wrote...


Game design is supposed to be a form of art first, business practice second. Kojima makes the games he wants and many people end up liking them, those who don't just move on to the next game. That statement about fixing what people don't enjoy isn't true because most of the proposed changes we've heard about have been to things people had no problem with. I don't know anyone that had a problem with creating a character from scratch.

Why should he believe what they're saying after what they did with ME2?

"Dragon Age 2 is as much about keeping worked well from Origins as addressing what didn't." You don't have to believe what has been said. Thats all between you and GameInformer. Maybe you mean things you had a problem with..?

I'm really not in the mood to argue at the moment.  

i am realy not arguing just sadly from what weve seen its a fact that this game will be action oriented
ok how do you explain the ninja move with 1 strike 20 mobs dead?? what improve in this??
why the devs keep silent and dont confirm that it will be the tactical rpg that  it sopuld be?
i want to belive but sadly i dont see a reason to..