1133 réponses à ce sujet

[thenemesis77]

Stanley Woo wrote...

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.

I understand that you can feel a great connection to a character, and you want him to be a certain way, but guess what? Characters can change. Look at Batman, for example, or, rather, The Bat-Man. Look at the very different ways he is written and drawn. At some point, people started drawing him a different way, people started writing him a certain way. Times changed, comics changed, the world changed, and of course, Batman's stories changed to reflect what was happening in the world.

Is Batman "your" character? he's been around much, much longer than Dragon Age has. how much control do Batman fans have in what Batman scripts get approved? How much influence do Batman fans have on who's chosen as the next actor to play Batman, or what actor voices Batman, or who dubs him in foreign language versions of movies? How many times has DC Comics phones you to ask you what the next Batman game is going to be? Where's the website Batman fans go to in order to vote for which writer we want to write which Batman story featuring which Batman villain next?

What's that you say? All of these things are done by creative professionals under some kind of contract with the owner of the Batman license? And that these products are then marketed to Batman fans to enjoy or not, as they choose? You're saying that fans of a given character or setting or license or property are not active creators of those stories and games and movies? that they are consumers who "merely" love, consume, empathize with, and perhaps become attached to the character or property?

I'm being a little sarcastic because I think it's an important lesson to learn. As much as we love the characters and stories and worlds that affect us, we all are really only passive consumers of those characters, stories, and worlds. we would love for them to remain the way we love them, unchanging. But time and product move on. I don't like all Batman stories, I don't like all Batman actors, and I certainly don't like all the Batman films. but I love the character, and when a good writer writes (or a good artist draws) a good Batman story, I'll pick it up and I'll enjoy it for what it is. I will also enjoy it for how it expands my view of the character or world. If 1940's the Bat-Man is all you ever want to know or have of the character, that's fine. You can do that, and no one should judge you for that. but you'll be missing Dark Knight Batman, Knightfall Batman, killing Joke Batman, No Man's Land Batman, JLA Batman, OMAC Batman, as well as missing out on Tim Drake Robin, Spoiler, Year One Batman, the movies, and the animated series.

Yes, you may not like the directions taken by certain creators, but wouldn't it be better to go along for the ride to see what will happen in this world, or to these characters rather than lock everything into a single, restrictive paradigm? I dunno, it seems weird to me that people would rather hold onto one unchanging view than to explore views that one might never have thought of: Knightfall Batman, Spider-Man revealing his identity to Aunt May, Wash's demise in Serenity, Angel in charge of Wolfram & Hart, etc. We love characters and stories because of how they're portrayed and written and acted and drawn, whatever. Why, then, are we so against having those same characters do something in addition to something we already know and love and enjoy?

SO Stan the man, you want us to just shut up and take it up the wazzou!, Man. I am glad you can be so out in the open about how you think of us CONSUMERS and what role we play, you sound like a cerntral elist and that the rest of us should just shut the you know what up and take it as it is, that makes me sick! Next thing you know Stan will be calling us mindless feeders and that we need to be put into camps to be terminated for thinking like FREE people, man I just love you!

[Collider]

Haexpane wrote...

Collider wrote...

Agreed, Bioware hates RPGs and wants to rid of them forever. Only then will we have world peace.

Nope, Bioware LOVES MONEY and they don't care if their game is an RPG or a Japanese dating simulator.

They could not care less about any GENRE.

It's like artists, they usually detest being categorized, and hate their own fans.  Bioware is a "tortured artist" who just wants to create, (and make bank) and their most diehard fans are also their biggest headache.

Ain't my fault.    Bioware made Baldur's Gate 2 and it's the greatest game ever.   I'm sorry for loving it?

I was joking, but your post was good.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Haexpane wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I like how people throw around the term Casual gaming when they have no idea what it is.

Here the definition is so wrong.
 

It's not about what the definition of "casual is" it's EA's own statements that casual gamers is a huge market, and they want to TAP IT by casualizing more "core" games.

We are not saying Halo 3 is a casual game.  We are saying Mass Effect 2 and NFL Madden were specifically DUMBED DOWN in order to attract the casuals.  

ME2 is not Black Jack.  But it wants those black jack players badly

And EA has divisions that do these specific games

ME 2 and Bioware was not one of them

ME 2 in order to be a casual game would have to get rid of 3D controls

And I don't think they really care about who buys ME 2 as long as people actually, whoever they are, just to continue existing.  ME 2 wasn't made for the casual market, thinking so is well, its stupid is what it is.

[Bryy_Miller]

thenemesis77 wrote...
Next thing you know Stan will be calling us mindless feeders and that we need to be put into camps to be terminated for thinking like FREE people, man I just love you!

... are you serious? Are you actually comparing an actual employees response to a bunch of people getting all self-entitled on a message board to genocide?

GENOCIDE?

[Onyx Jaguar]

their name is the nemesis for a reason it seems

[Merced256]

While we've kind of touched on the lack of CRPG's...

It is basically down to bioware. The only two good CRPGs in the last 10 years have come out of bioware. Doesn't it say something about the genre and the company that has propped it up when they turn their own intellectual property, whose original title was hailed as the spiritual successor to BG2, in to something that at best vaguely resembles a RPG let alone a CRPG?

edit: Also to reply to the whole ME2 thing.

Uhhhh... How was ME2 anything other than a casual game? What 3d controls? lolwut? You didn't even need squadmates in me2 till the final mission, and its not like they had valueable input on any mission other than the ones they specifically gave you. ME2 was a good story, decent gameplay.. for a shooter, and nothing else. Hell ME2 might as well equate directly in to the first assassin's creed. Which was an excellent game, but had virtually no character progression other than the first few missions but did have an excellent story.

I think the point a lot of people are trying to get across is cinematic roller coasters are good and all, but a decently large demographic wants a little more. <_<

Modifié par Merced256, 13 août 2010 - 01:40 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Having played BG 1, 2 and DA in this past week. DA more or less resembles the BG games from how they are organized. Little else.

Basically you do such and such quests then like in the Original BG you end up finishing up in the big city, with the final fight happening in the big city.

Other than that you have some gameplay mechanics and of course a fantastical setting.

I don't see how that is being infringed upon in DA 2 from what we have seen

EDIT:  Basically what I mean is, is that it is a DnD game without the license, with similar gameplay concepts to the original.  Whether or not it ends up looking more like NWN-KOTOR evolution rather than the BG games is yet to be seen.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 13 août 2010 - 01:37 .

[hexaligned]

*munches popcorn happily*



Please, someone use this thread in a paper, your thesis can be "On the Construction of Bubbles of Self Delusion and Entitlement in Western Societies"

[joey_mork84]

This thread has kept me more entertained just reading it than cable tv or just about any video game ever could..
Entertainment value aside, I do have to say this has been a great thread just for the simple fact that it actually had a basis for a good debate.. Till the top of this page, that is.. (I'm with Bryy_Miller on that one) Even with that its still a hell of a lot better than the pronounciation of the word "golem". This one at least made sense, but it seems to have run its course..

Modifié par joey_mork84, 13 août 2010 - 01:55 .

[Khavos]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Khavos wrote...

An RPG combat system, for one.  I did a ME2 run on Insanity without ever spending a talent point.  The game wasn't impossible - it wasn't even noticeably more difficult than if I had spent them all.  It was a shooter.  It was built as a shooter, with RPG bits tacked on where they could fit - and Bioware doesn't deny this, by the way.  That leaves it as a shooter with dialogue options.  If that fits your definition of an CRPG, more power to you - it doesn't fit mine.   There are far better action/shooter developers out there, and Bioware's writing isn't any better than theirs in terms of plotlines.  Their storytelling gives them a slight edge, but it's quite rare that I want to play a game solely for the decent storytelling rather than the actual gameplay.  

Who's to say what an "RPG combat system" has to be like?  The nature of the combat system alone does not, IMO, determine whether a game is an RPG or not, even though certain styles of combat are traditionally more associated with RPGs.
[

I suppose I'm saying what it has to be like.  You can't simply throw dialogue options into Modern Warfare 2 and suddenly call it an RPG, which is essentially what you seem to be suggesting.  

An RPG combat system is one in which the character's abilities, rather than the player's, determine combat outcomes.  ME2 was a shooter.  I like shooters.  I play them frequently.  That's how I can recognize them.  Nothing I did to Shepard in ME2 made him shoot better or worse.  Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point.  It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious.  The game did not have an RPG combat system, it had a shooter combat system.  Thus, in my book, it was a craptastic RPG.  And, for the record, it was only a mediocre shooter.  

[Onyx Jaguar]

Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point. It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious.

I did this in both Oblivion and at one point in DA. Nerfing yourself making things a pain in the ass isn't the fault of the system, its a choice that you as a player make.



There is a fine line between tedium and difficulty, and I can't really distinguish them in anything except I dunno, something like Demon Souls or ****in Battletoads

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I did this in both Oblivion and at one point in DA. Nerfing yourself making things a pain in the ass isn't the fault of the system, its a choice that you as a player make.

But if the game is too easy that you have to nerf yourself in such manners, there's a problem.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I did this in both Oblivion and at one point in DA. Nerfing yourself making things a pain in the ass isn't the fault of the system, its a choice that you as a player make.

But if the game is too easy that you have to nerf yourself in such manners, there's a problem.

That's if you think the game is too easy.  I mostly play ME 2 on Normal, have no desire to play it on Insanity because I found it extremely tedious.

Conversely I think it is more of a problem if a game is too difficult without any way out.  Take for instance Myth 2.  I played that on Normal, then I played it on easy, then on very easy.  Could not tell the difference between the difficulties.

What Oblivion DA and ME have over this is the abiilty to modify your game as you play rather than have to conform to a set rule.

[Collider]

ME1 on insanity...now that was tedious.

[TSamee]

difficulties have to up your damage as well to effective. "Insanity" should be high risk, not "I'm safe here but it'll take another hour of fire to kill this thing". Look at Ninja Gaiden; it's not harder to kill things on the highest difficulty, but it's a hell of a lot harder to die. To combat this, systems are in place to let exceptionally skilled players who play on hard to avoid being hit.



TL;DR: higher difficulties need to require more skill, not more patience.

[SirOccam]

Khavos wrote...

An RPG combat system is one in which the character's abilities, rather than the player's, determine combat outcomes.  ME2 was a shooter.  I like shooters.  I play them frequently.  That's how I can recognize them.  Nothing I did to Shepard in ME2 made him shoot better or worse.  Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point.  It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious.  The game did not have an RPG combat system, it had a shooter combat system.  Thus, in my book, it was a craptastic RPG.  And, for the record, it was only a mediocre shooter. 

Hmm, very well-stated. That is...a compelling argument. At last someone explains WHY they thought something was un-RPG-ish, instead of simply stating it to be so. I may have to revise my stance on the issue somewhat.

I still think combat in general isn't that crucial to a game deserving to be called an RPG, though. Combat could take whatever form, or even be absent altogether, and a game could still be called an RPG, in my opinion. But I think your point has merit, and I'll agree that ME2's combat was not indicative of an RPG. I would still call ME2 an RPG, though, or at least a hybrid RPG/shooter. I think the heart of an RPG is still there, even if not all the external trappings are.

[Khavos]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point. It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious.

I did this in both Oblivion and at one point in DA. Nerfing yourself making things a pain in the ass isn't the fault of the system, its a choice that you as a player make.

There is a fine line between tedium and difficulty, and I can't really distinguish them in anything except I dunno, something like Demon Souls or ****in Battletoads

So you did a successful DA:O Nightmare run with all of your characters having no talent points allocated to anything?  Honestly, I don't believe you.

[Angelsdawn]

SirOccam wrote...

Khavos wrote...

An RPG combat system is one in which the character's abilities, rather than the player's, determine combat outcomes.  ME2 was a shooter.  I like shooters.  I play them frequently.  That's how I can recognize them.  Nothing I did to Shepard in ME2 made him shoot better or worse.  Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point.  It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious.  The game did not have an RPG combat system, it had a shooter combat system.  Thus, in my book, it was a craptastic RPG.  And, for the record, it was only a mediocre shooter. 

Hmm, very well-stated. That is...a compelling argument. At last someone explains WHY they thought something was un-RPG-ish, instead of simply stating it to be so. I may have to revise my stance on the issue somewhat.

I still think combat in general isn't that crucial to a game deserving to be called an RPG, though. Combat could take whatever form, or even be absent altogether, and a game could still be called an RPG, in my opinion. But I think your point has merit, and I'll agree that ME2's combat was not indicative of an RPG. I would still call ME2 an RPG, though, or at least a hybrid RPG/shooter. I think the heart of an RPG is still there, even if not all the external trappings are.

Same here. Something annoyed me about ME2 and I couldn't quite pinpoint what exactly until it was expressed this way. Though I've always worried that the RPG genre could very well die with Dragon Age Origins, I don't like to make assumptions about the sequel anymore ever since I've read up a lot more about what they intend to do with the game. The new art direction threw me off at first though.

XP per kill, loot and inventory etc were always trademark RPG for me ever since NWN. But i'm seeing that these aren't very necessary  to make an RPG an RPG, rather what makes it so is the dialogue and diversity of outcomes. It might seem as though something was missing from ME2, but not all the change was bad. As long as they keep a balance and they don't turn it into a lightweight RPG then I trust Bioware's judgement on this.

Mainly i'm just crossing my fingers that if DA2 doesn't turn out to be the tactical gameplay I wanted it to be that they may explore making another DAO in the future.

Modifié par Angelsdawn, 13 août 2010 - 02:36 .

[Khavos]

SirOccam wrote...

Khavos wrote...

An RPG combat system is one in which the character's abilities, rather than the player's, determine combat outcomes.  ME2 was a shooter.  I like shooters.  I play them frequently.  That's how I can recognize them.  Nothing I did to Shepard in ME2 made him shoot better or worse.  Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point.  It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious.  The game did not have an RPG combat system, it had a shooter combat system.  Thus, in my book, it was a craptastic RPG.  And, for the record, it was only a mediocre shooter. 

Hmm, very well-stated. That is...a compelling argument. At last someone explains WHY they thought something was un-RPG-ish, instead of simply stating it to be so. I may have to revise my stance on the issue somewhat.

I still think combat in general isn't that crucial to a game deserving to be called an RPG, though. Combat could take whatever form, or even be absent altogether, and a game could still be called an RPG, in my opinion. But I think your point has merit, and I'll agree that ME2's combat was not indicative of an RPG. I would still call ME2 an RPG, though, or at least a hybrid RPG/shooter. I think the heart of an RPG is still there, even if not all the external trappings are.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.  Story doesn't make a game an RPG for me; all games I play have stories, with the exception of sports games.  Shooters, platformers, action games, even strategy games. 

Character creation and development, RPG combat systems, choice, itemization.  Those are elements that I associate with RPGs.  Otherwise, as said, I'm just playing an adventure game where I can occasionally make the protagonist sound angry or happy.

[Davasar]

Merced256 wrote...

Probably because some people enjoy specific characteristics of a genre of games more than they do the others. For some the best part of a RPG is character creation/customization. For others its character advancement or how powerful you can make your character. For some its story, others its loot.

Remove some of those, water down others, and what you have isn't a reflection of what people wanted or expected. As i said earlier, that doesn't automatically make it terrible, but come on. You can't make DA:O and flaunt some CRPG throwback this and that and then 180 the franchise and expect it to be universally well recieved. I'm fine with a Dragon Age based cinemtic story driven RPGlite game. Will i play it as much as i did DA:O? No, but they will get my 60 or so dollars, and since thats all they are really after then i suppose mission accomplished.

edit: I would also like to thank mr. woo for essentially confirming DA2 is a radical departure from anything resembling a CRPG. What i don't get is why you got upset when someone said it was Dragon Effect. Isn't that exactly what it is?

This.

[SirOccam]

Khavos wrote...

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.  Story doesn't make a game an RPG for me; all games I play have stories, with the exception of sports games.  Shooters, platformers, action games, even strategy games. 

Character creation and development, RPG combat systems, choice, itemization.  Those are elements that I associate with RPGs.  Otherwise, as said, I'm just playing an adventure game where I can occasionally make the protagonist sound angry or happy.

Well it's not just having a story that I think makes it an RPG. I just think that as a concept, "story" is more important than combat, and probably the most important thing. And it's not just the telling of the story, but the interactivity of that story and the effects your character's decisions have on the outcome of that story. Certainly character creation/customization and development figure into it as well.

Like I said before, I think combat is a function of story. I think combat exists at the pleasure of the story, to put it another way. If someone made a mystery game where you created your own character and made your own decisions, and the ending of the game was greatly influenced by those decisions, but no combat occurred whatsoever, I would have no problem calling it an RPG. But when there is combat, I think your point about it depending on the character's skill over the player's is a sound one.

[zahra]

BattlerDunbine wrote...

Browsing this thread is 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back...

Thank you. I was just wondering whether I should read everything on this thread, and I shall follow my gut instinct and hightail out of here.

[Khavos]

SirOccam wrote...

Khavos wrote...

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.  Story doesn't make a game an RPG for me; all games I play have stories, with the exception of sports games.  Shooters, platformers, action games, even strategy games. 

Character creation and development, RPG combat systems, choice, itemization.  Those are elements that I associate with RPGs.  Otherwise, as said, I'm just playing an adventure game where I can occasionally make the protagonist sound angry or happy.

Well it's not just having a story that I think makes it an RPG. I just think that as a concept, "story" is more important than combat, and probably the most important thing. And it's not just the telling of the story, but the interactivity of that story and the effects your character's decisions have on the outcome of that story. Certainly character creation/customization and development figure into it as well.

Like I said before, I think combat is a function of story. I think combat exists at the pleasure of the story, to put it another way. If someone made a mystery game where you created your own character and made your own decisions, and the ending of the game was greatly influenced by those decisions, but no combat occurred whatsoever, I would have no problem calling it an RPG. But when there is combat, I think your point about it depending on the character's skill over the player's is a sound one.

I would have the same issues with your hypothetical mystery RPG if I spent time creating a character and assigning skillpoints just to discover that they were all simply useless gloss, and my ability to detect a clue or question a witness or something was based solely on my skill rather than my character's.

So, really, I suppose I meant more gameplay than combat, even.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Davasar wrote...

I would also like to thank mr. woo for essentially confirming DA2 is a radical departure from anything resembling a CRPG.

Stan did nothing of the sort.

[Saibh]

Defining game genres is in massive need of an overhaul, wouldn't you say?  The term is very...generous. Used broadly, it could apply to an overwhelming amount of games. To me, the defining aspect of an RPG (which might not be anyone else's, and I find that completely valid) is the ability to assume the character and tell their story. There are a few other factors that change what it means to assume (DIRECT CONTROL of) the character, but it really boils down to that.

Combat is so completely unimportant to me. So long as it's not interfering with gameplay a la wonky cameras or strange difficulty spikes, anything not story/character-driven is generally unimportant to me. Most of the changes of the game so far don't really bother me because the core pieces of what I consider to be a good RPG are still there.

Modifié par Saibh, 13 août 2010 - 03:19 .