69 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

A lot of what seems like freedom (like having any race, any class, endless physical customization, etc.) is actually extremely limiting. Any writing team for a game like that can't possibly make a story that can cater to every possible combination, so you end up with a very generic story that changes little from character to character.

In Origins, they had 6 main combinations of race and class, each with some unique content, so not every story was the same. With DA2 and only 1 race, that gives them a HUGE amount of freedom to really tailor the story to your gameplay, much more than they could with Origins or and even more "open" game.

It's the classic story/freedom balance. Freedom is good, but not to the point that it significantly restricts storytelling opportunities.

[Blumbum]

I didn't think Origin's story was limiting in any way. Having 6 origins was awesome and provided plenty of replay value. I did 6 playthroughs in a row when I first got the game. There was plenty of choices to vary from and again the plot was awesome.

[jjkrogs]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I sort of don't get this. I've been playing Baldur's Gate I for the first time ever, recently (I know, I know!) and I've been sort of blown away by how LITTLE choice there is. When I level up, I just press a button that, unless I'm a thief, just TELLS me flat out what I'm getting from this level up. The once in a million years I get an option for a new weapon proffiency, I can't choose to put it into bows because I already have two stars in bows I guess? So I have to just put it into another weapon type that I'm never going to use.

People always talk about how much choice old school RPGs have, and I've been looking forward to seeing it, but now that I've been going through BG, I'm sort of scratching my head.

Admittedly, BG1 was limited by the early D&D rules.  The system used in Neverwinter Nights, and then even moreso in Neverwinter Nights 2 (especially after the expansions) really adds some cool stuff, though some would say things get a bit overwhelming.  Not me. 

On that note, if you're looking for solid old-school RPGs, I would suggest Neverwinter Nights, and then the expansion Hoards of the Underdark.  Not only do you have more advanced rules, but you get rid of the isometric view that drives me crazy in Baldurs Gate.

Modifié par jjkrogs, 06 août 2010 - 01:30 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

jjkrogs wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

I sort of don't get this. I've been playing Baldur's Gate I for the first time ever, recently (I know, I know!) and I've been sort of blown away by how LITTLE choice there is. When I level up, I just press a button that, unless I'm a thief, just TELLS me flat out what I'm getting from this level up. The once in a million years I get an option for a new weapon proffiency, I can't choose to put it into bows because I already have two stars in bows I guess? So I have to just put it into another weapon type that I'm never going to use.

People always talk about how much choice old school RPGs have, and I've been looking forward to seeing it, but now that I've been going through BG, I'm sort of scratching my head.

Admittedly, BG1 was limited by the early D&D rules.  The system used in Neverwinter Nights, and then even moreso in Neverwinter Nights 2 (especially after the expansions) really adds some cool stuff, though some would say things get a bit overwhelming.  Not me. 

On that note, if you're looking for solid old-school RPGs, I would suggest Neverwinter Nights, and then the expansion Hoards of the Underdark.  Not only do you have more advanced rules, but you get rid of the isometric view that drives me crazy in Baldurs Gate.

I don't know that I would call 3rd edition D&D old-school around some of the people I game with (I'd get the YOU YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPER treatment), but I agree that the ruleset that NWN and NWN2 were based on is cleaner and far less grating than 2e.  It took me for freaking ever to wrap my head around the idea that AC and THAC0 were supposed to be LOW rather than high 

[AlanC9]

jjkrogs wrote...
I am one of those gamers who miss the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons system, despite its flaws.  Anyone who knows this system also realizes that Dragon Age Origins, in comparison, was so dumbed-down as to make character creation and leveling a yawnfest as you constantly thought to yourself, "there's got to be more to this, right?"

AD&D? This is a joke, right? Both character creation and leveling are brain-dead in AD&D.

3rd ed builds can be interesting, but not AD&D builds.

Edit: looks like RosaAquafire got here before me.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 août 2010 - 02:40 .

[TransientNomad]

^ Agreed ^



Still had a good time with Baldur's Gate, however. In fact I liked the BG series much more than Neverwinter Nights, but probabley simply because of the better story and narrative presentation.

[jjkrogs]

AlanC9 wrote...

jjkrogs wrote...
I am one of those gamers who miss the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons system, despite its flaws.  Anyone who knows this system also realizes that Dragon Age Origins, in comparison, was so dumbed-down as to make character creation and leveling a yawnfest as you constantly thought to yourself, "there's got to be more to this, right?"

AD&D? This is a joke, right? Both character creation and leveling are brain-dead in AD&D.

3rd ed builds can be interesting, but not AD&D builds.

Edit: looks like RosaAquafire got here before me.

I guess I generalized by saying "AD&D" when I meant the additions to it, such as 3rd edition (Neverwinter Nights) and 3.5 for NWN2. 

[SDNcN]

My main gripe with the use of 3.5 in Neverwinter Night 2 was that I would start out with a character concept, look for a way to implement it, realize it would be subpar, then end with an odd multiclass combination.



The 3 base classes and specialization system in DA could use some improvements, but at least when I make a warrior, I can generally stay as a warrior, without some ending with a funky combination of divine or arcane classes.

[Zjarcal]

jjkrogs wrote...

Admittedly, BG1 was limited by the early D&D rules.  The system used in Neverwinter Nights, and then even moreso in Neverwinter Nights 2 (especially after the expansions) really adds some cool stuff, though some would say things get a bit overwhelming.  Not me. 

On that note, if you're looking for solid old-school RPGs, I would suggest Neverwinter Nights, and then the expansion Hoards of the Underdark.  Not only do you have more advanced rules, but you get rid of the isometric view that drives me crazy in Baldurs Gate.

I recently (about 6 months ago) played Neverwinter Nights, along with the Shadows of Undrentide, for the first time. I absolutely loved it, in part for some of the things you mention and also because of the story. However I have to say that for all the customization I could do with a character, the character itself hardly stood out as different in the gameworld. There was only one background, where you were a young apprentice and got attacked while you were in training, and during the campaign there were hardly any moments that made you feel unique. I remember one quest that I couldn't take a part of because I wasn't a druid (some sort of championship if I remember correctly) and a few quests that were only open to wizards (or sorcerers, or both...).

DA on the other hand, while limiting class and skill options, made me feel much more connected to the gameworld and consequently my characters felt much more "unique". Obviously the origin stories played a great part on this, but I still feel that DA allows for more choice when creating a character than older RPGs.

Nonetheless, it would be good for the style of gameplay of older RPGs to not get lost in the shuffle.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 06 août 2010 - 03:33 .

[Seifz]

I'll admit that I only read the first post, so I'm sorry if I'm saying something that's already been said.

jjkrogs wrote...

While I'm excited about DA2, and think it will be a fun ride regardless, clearly BioWare is leaving the option-heavy customizable character system of 'true' RPGs in favor of cookie-cutter PCs with limited character choices.  I found it difficult to embrace the lack of depth and customization in DAO, but I gave it a pass because it was a new universe with a whole new system and figured they'd increase these options as more content was released.  Unfortunately, it seems DA2 takes it one step further (or 2 steps backward, if you will), in the name of cinematography and expediency.

Frankly, I would have liked more options in DA:O.  However, I can definitely get behind the new approach in DA2.  The problem in DA:O wasn't that I could only choose from three races or six last names.  The real problem in DA:O was that the talent options were so limited.  Specializations meant almost nothing.  By Awakening, we had three specializations.  That's nuts!  Those four little talents did very little to separate my character from another of his class.  Outside specializations, you were basically locked into one block of 12 talents with little else to do.  Mages were slightly better here.

So, I don't mind that I have to play Hawke.  I can still choose my gender, I can still decide what (s)he looks like, and I can still choose his/her class and skills entirely.  But, I want more meaningful skill choices.

I am one of those gamers who miss the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons system, despite its flaws.  Anyone who knows this system also realizes that Dragon Age Origins, in comparison, was so dumbed-down as to make character creation and leveling a yawnfest as you constantly thought to yourself, "there's got to be more to this, right?"

I need clarification here.  Do you actually mean AD&D v2 (e.g. BG) or do you mean the D&D v3 system used in NWN?  The "Advanced" was dropped in v3, I believe.  If you mean the former, then I must strongly disagree.  The AD&D rules were not meant for CRPGs and they translate very poorly.  Character development was easily the worst part of BG/BG2.  If you mean the system used in NWN (or even better, NWN2), then I have mixed feelings.  On the one hand, I enjoyed the complexity and creating new character builds entertained me for countless hours.  On the other hand, the system is very poorly balanced.  The intentional lack of balance is great for pen and paper games, but it sucks for CRPGs.

It doesn't matter, though.  I'd be very surprised if Hasbro/Wizards let anyone create a new D&D game that didn't use the version 4 ruleset.  I very much do not like the new ruleset.  Plus, this was BioWare's first shot at the DA ruleset.  Let it evolve a bit!

BioWare got away from AD&D primarily so they wouldn't have to pay royalties, ...

That's not what I remember.  As I recall, they were tired of having to ask Wizards for approval whenever they wrote or designed anything, tired of being told they had to change certain plot elements to remain more faithful to D&D, and tired of being constrained with someone else's world.  I doubt that royalties were a big deal.

... but I think they've discovered that coming up with something on par with it 'from scratch' turned out to be far more daunting and expensive than they realized.  This, to me, is evident by the complete change of direction being taken in DA2.

I'm puzzled by this statement.  There is no "complete change of direction".   They changed the way some things look, they're providing only one origin instead of six, and (hopefully) they'll be updating the ruleset to suck less.  That's not a complete change of direction.  DA2 is still an RPG, it's still set in Thedas, it still has tactical party gameplay (at least on the PC... consoles are weird), it still has romances, etc.

I understand that some people are upset to have only one origin and maybe they don't like the voiceovers.  Personally, I'm glad that BioWare has decided to go with a different storytelling technique for the second game.  Hopefully, they'll come up with a third technique for the third game.  The idea that we get to explore the setting of Dragon Age in different ways with different viewpoints and a whole lot of ambiguity is a fantastic one.  I can't be the only tired that's tired of doing the same thing in every CRPG!

So, we had the same story from six points of view in DA:O.  In DA2, we hear a past story from narrators.  What will DA3 bring?  I can't wait!

With that said, I wonder if BioWare, now sold out to EA, has any plans to go back to Forgotten Realms/AD&D for a new game, geared toward an old school RPG audience?  Or do the profit requirements now placed upon them guarantee that only a game geared for the largest possible audience will ever again be produced?   Sadly, I think this is the case for BioWare.

Are there any other companies considering RPGs in the Forgotten Realms system?  Is Atari planning a Neverwinter Nights 3?

I would be very surprised if EA let BioWare publish a title with Atari and Hasbro.  I'd also be very surprised if anyone at BioWare was willing to put up with the constraints that come with such a partnership after having the freedom that they have in the universes of Mass Effect and Dragon Age.  BioWare has grown up.  It's a Good Thing.

[jjkrogs]

"I'm puzzled by this statement. There is no "complete change of direction". They changed the way some things look, they're providing only one origin instead of six, and (hopefully) they'll be updating the ruleset to suck less. That's not a complete change of direction. DA2 is still an RPG, it's still set in Thedas, it still has tactical party gameplay (at least on the PC... consoles are weird), it still has romances, etc."

I'm going with the controversial assumption of many, myself included, that Origins was to be the first of a series of games involving the same importable character, much like BG 1/2. Why else would they spend so much time trumpeting the whole concept of origin stories? Why spend so much time and effort on background for a single game? Besides, the 'spiritual successor' to BG ended with a significant cliffhanger so as to suggest the story continued. I don't think it's a stretch to assume a continuation of the warden's story for any sequel.

So the announcement of a whole new (premade) character, with a whole new story loosely based on what happened in the first game, to me, suggests a change of concept. I'm also convinced the success of ME2 and EA's involvement also shifted things along in a new direction. To what extent is anyone's guess.

BioWare will never admit this is true (if indeed it is) so I admit it will never be more than speculation, but that's the vibe I'm getting from the whole deal. They want a "choose your own movie", not an RPG. Will I enjoy the game, sure. But it leaves room for someone to create a new D&D-based game, should the other legal ramifications play out.

Modifié par jjkrogs, 06 août 2010 - 05:10 .

[Vaeliorin]

jjkrogs wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

jjkrogs wrote...
I am one of those gamers who miss the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons system, despite its flaws.  Anyone who knows this system also realizes that Dragon Age Origins, in comparison, was so dumbed-down as to make character creation and leveling a yawnfest as you constantly thought to yourself, "there's got to be more to this, right?"

AD&D? This is a joke, right? Both character creation and leveling are brain-dead in AD&D.

3rd ed builds can be interesting, but not AD&D builds.

Edit: looks like RosaAquafire got here before me.

I guess I generalized by saying "AD&D" when I meant the additions to it, such as 3rd edition (Neverwinter Nights) and 3.5 for NWN2. 

3.X != AD&D.  AD&D is 2E.

Anyway, my non-casters still disagree with you.  Feats might be nice and all, but they still don't give a non-caster much in the way of meaningful choices to make during combat.

[Seifz]

jjkrogs wrote...

"I'm puzzled by this statement. There is no "complete change of direction". They changed the way some things look, they're providing only one origin instead of six, and (hopefully) they'll be updating the ruleset to suck less. That's not a complete change of direction. DA2 is still an RPG, it's still set in Thedas, it still has tactical party gameplay (at least on the PC... consoles are weird), it still has romances, etc."

I'm going with the controversial assumption of many, myself included, that Origins was to be the first of a series of games involving the same importable character, much like BG 1/2. Why else would they spend so much time trumpeting the whole concept of origin stories? Why spend so much time and effort on background for a single game? Besides, the 'spiritual successor' to BG ended with a significant cliffhanger so as to suggest the story continued. I don't think it's a stretch to assume a continuation of the warden's story for any sequel.

It's not BioWare's fault that you made an assumption and they didn't do what you thought they would.  That's your fault.  The origin stories were a storytelling technique that they employed in the first Dragon Age game. The second game will use a new technique in which we relive the past through the views of a narrator.  Who's to say that the Warden's story won't continue?  Why can't the story continue in another DA expansion?  Or a DA2 expansion?  Or DA3?

When I was destroying insanely powerful creatures with almost no effort at the end of Awakening, I pretty much decided that DA2 would feature a new hero.  The Warden is in the "epic levels" phase now and that just doesn't make for a good tactical game.

So the announcement of a whole new (premade) character, with a whole new story loosely based on what happened in the first game, to me, suggests a change of concept. I'm also convinced the success of ME2 and EA's involvement also shifted things along in a new direction. To what extent is anyone's guess.

Hawke is no more premade than any of the six origin characters were.  In DA:O, you chose one of six characters.  In DA2, you have only a single character.  You can customize exactly as much about Hawke as you did your DA:O character.

BioWare will never admit this is true (if indeed it is) so I admit it will never be more than speculation, but that's the vibe I'm getting from the whole deal. They want a "choose your own movie", not an RPG. Will I enjoy the game, sure. But it leaves room for someone to create a new D&D-based game, should the other legal ramifications play out.

I'm certain that someone will create more D&D-based CRPGs in the future.  The 4ed rules were practically written for it.  It won't be BioWare.  Personally, I'm glad that they've chosen a more in-depth, well-written story over super customizable characters.  Creating a Bard/AA/Fighter/RDD is fun and all, but it puts a lot of limitations on what the storytellers can do in the game.

[Dtelm]

Saibh wrote...

I'd say over half the games one can actually call an RPG don't allow you to customize your race.

Without a doubt. In fact there is nothing about an RPG that says you should be able to choose your race, or build your backstory, or customize your character in these regards. BioWare has gone a certain direction with their games in allowing these choices, all so that the story will feel truely your own.

Thats the real goal of it all. To make the story yours. In Dragon Age: Origins, being able to choose your beginnings was the best thing to make the story yours. In Dragon Age II, thats not an option, not because they want to stuff a character down your throat, but so they can give you more control over your character.

Control over what happens is not inversely correlated between creater and player. In some cases, BioWare having more control over the story will alow players more control over the story. 

[Dtelm]

Pixell Jones wrote...

I doubt there will be a 'true' nwn3, since in the latest ed. of the dnd rules, neverwinter has been destroyed.

I have to disagree. I think it will be awhile, but I don't think we've seen the end of neverwinter. Well. Perhaps it will not be titled nwn3....but it will have a successor. Mark my words.

[Khavos]

Seifz wrote...

I'm certain that someone will create more D&D-based CRPGs in the future.  The 4ed rules were practically written for it.  It won't be BioWare.  Personally, I'm glad that they've chosen a more in-depth, well-written story over super customizable characters.  Creating a Bard/AA/Fighter/RDD is fun and all, but it puts a lot of limitations on what the storytellers can do in the game.

You appear to have said "well-written" when you clearly meant "well-told." 

And I agree with your opponent in this argument.  I'm in the camp that'd vastly prefer to create my own character rather than have Bioware deigning to allow me to play theirs.  If I occasionally wanted to give orders to a walking cliche making his way through a B-movie, I'd go direct Sylvester Stallone's next flick.  

[Dtelm]

Khavos wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Personally, I'm glad that they've chosen a more in-depth, well-written story over super customizable characters. 

You appear to have said "well-written" when you clearly meant "well-told." 

If you going to be technical simply for the sake of being technical, at least be correct.
There is nothing wrong with saying a well-written story. The story had to be written, did it not? You can just as easily say that a movie was very well written.

Thats why those people that work on the story are called "story writers" and not "story tellers" 

[Khavos]

Dtelm wrote...
If you going to be technical simply for the sake of being technical, at least be correct.
There is nothing wrong with saying a well-written story. The story had to be written, did it not? You can just as easily say that a movie was very well written.

Thats why those people that work on the story are called "story writers" and not "story tellers" 

There's something wrong with saying "a well-written story" when the story is not well-written.  They're told well, but Bioware stories tend to be awfully pedestrian, and if you don't see their tropes and cliches coming the second you install the game, I don't know what to tell you. 

[RosaAquafire]

I did try NWN, I just didn't like it because I enjoy party play a lot. Soloing through an RPG is just a boring grind to me, and max party size in NWN being so low sort of sucked the joy out of it for me. Finding the perfect party balance and playing your dudes like chess is probably my favourite part of an RPG. It made some classes way easily outclassed by others.



On the story front, it also was just too much like playing actual 3rd edition DnD, but without the ... fun. Without much in the way of characters, there weren't a lot of opportunities for real roleplay. And I tend to like playing characters like bards in actual DnD and building them to break the campaign through NPC interaction. NwN felt too hack and slash-y in comparison to my actual DnD experiences.



Just my opinion, though! It they took 3rd edition and used it in a game like BG, it would probably be the best of all worlds.

[AlanC9]

Vaeliorin wrote...
Anyway, my non-casters still disagree with you.  Feats might be nice and all, but they still don't give a non-caster much in the way of meaningful choices to make during combat.

To be fair to 3.0/3.5, a lot of the interesting moves from D&D melee combat don't translate from turn-based to RTWP.

[Zjarcal]

Khavos wrote...

There's something wrong with saying "a well-written story" when the story is not well-written.

You say that as if it were a fact. If you're of the opinion that their stories are badly written that's fine, but don't point it out as if it were a fact.

Some of us do like their stories and do believe they are well written.

[Khavos]

Zjarcal wrote...

Khavos wrote...

There's something wrong with saying "a well-written story" when the story is not well-written.

You say that as if it were a fact. If you're of the opinion that their stories are badly written that's fine, but don't point it out as if it were a fact.

Some of us do like their stories and do believe they are well written.

Well, there's no accounting for taste.  I met someone once who liked the movie Battlefield Earth.

[Vaeliorin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
Anyway, my non-casters still disagree with you.  Feats might be nice and all, but they still don't give a non-caster much in the way of meaningful choices to make during combat.

To be fair to 3.0/3.5, a lot of the interesting moves from D&D melee combat don't translate from turn-based to RTWP.

I know.  I have 2 bookshelves full of 3.X stuff.  But until the Book of Nine Swords, the choices you had as a non-caster in combat were, at best, very situationally useful.  Charge was about the only combat maneuver I ever saw anyone use regularly (well, not counting power attack, but I don't find power attack a partiularly interesting option, as unless you're meta-gaming and know the enemy's AC, everyone just seems to max it out.)

[Zjarcal]

Ah, yes, the typical "anyone who doesn't share my view has bad taste". How original.

[jjkrogs]

"When I was destroying insanely powerful creatures with almost no effort at the end of Awakening, I pretty much decided that DA2 would feature a new hero. The Warden is in the "epic levels" phase now and that just doesn't make for a good tactical game."



Really? Then there's a cap in DA's system, because I sure didn't see it. I could've kept plugging numbers into strength, as a warrior, infinitely, apparently. Which, getting back on track here, is part of the problem with DA's character system. It forced you, in essence, to keep coming back to the same watering hole each and every time you level. There are no caps on attributes, but there are max skills? It just isn't right. But alas, I'm beating a dead horse, here. I've said what I wanted to say about the DA character system, and the bottom line is it's nothing like D&D 3.0+. Some like that fact, some don't. I am the latter.