1133 réponses à ce sujet

[ENHbrometheus]

ENHbrometheus wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

ENHbrometheus wrote...

So far what has been said and gleaned from articles can logically point to Bioware chasing the skirt of console kiddies and non RPG fans. There comes a point where streamlining features is no longer the beloved PR word "innovation", and at that point it just becomes a gross oversimplifcation.

The only problem is that 99% of that stuff is based off something as vague as "more streamlined combat." Instead of waiting or asking for details, people make ridiculous assumptions as to what that means. "Oh clearly it's going to be all 'Press X to win' now!"

"New cinematic feel?" What does that mean? "Hot-rodded graphics?" "Dynamic combat system?"

Then even when it's not vague, it gets blown way out of proportion. "We want to sell 10 million units" becomes " [They are] going after sales first and foremost without much thought given to the quality of the game." News that Hawke has a voice and the dialogue is in a wheel shape means the game is going to be a clone of Mass Effect 2.

It only sounds like they're lying because you're putting words in their mouths and you can't understand the concept that they didn't actually say what you thought they said.

So, in short, if you want to pretend that statements like "Bioware [are] chasing the skirt of console kiddies and non RPG fans" are conclusions that are in any way remotely logical, then be prepared for a lot of "lies." Because as more news comes out, you're going to be shown how wrong those suppositions are. The only thing is, instead of realizing that you were wrong, you'll just choose to assume that they lied the first time.

In my view, they leave it vague so as to not disappoint their "hardcore" audience, typically the forum goers. A lot of what they have said is pointing in the direction of simplifying things beyond a comfortable threshold for most gamers who loved DA:O (take that as you will.), myself included.

It's not a ridiculous assumption when you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who has played a Bioware game in the past (ME1), only to see its RPG elements gutted and left on the floor of the development room in favor of a more streamlined shooter designed for consoles. In my opinion they even downgraded the story.

I perfectly understand what they're saying, although it seems my assumptions and guesses disagree with yours, and that what they're saying is mostly to hype the game and create excitement with the majority of gamers, which in this case are those who prefer consoles and shooters.

And in what way are those statements not logical? As someone who has chronicled the statements said so far by Bioware, in what ways are they appealing to fans of DA:O? In what ways are they not opting to streamline the game to chase a bigger audience? I ask because of all people you should know, or at least be able to provide a time where they announced they were expanding or creating something, rather than cutting back.

I will gladly eat my shoe the day that information comes out and proves me wrong. I am waiting for that day with bated breath. Hopefully I'll see it on your topic, where they announce the return of the isometric view, and provide a definitive answer on tools to create mods, to name a few of the things I hope to see. Until then I'll call out their PR talk and hype machine for what it is. Here's to hoping, but not expecting, for good news that indicates otherwise.

[ENHbrometheus]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

ENHbrometheus wrote...

 If someone has an issue with the game, then let them voice it

"I'm right and everyone else - including BioWare - is wrong."
"BioWare is lying."
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy."

Does that seem reasonable to you?

As long as it is not that simply put and actually has reasoning behind it, then sure.

[MuDDVayNe]

*sigh* bioware you always seem to **** up your sequels dont you, mass effect 1 amazing original game with great customization aspects along with a epic story behind it, Mass effect 2 dull bland concept boring unresponsive characters (exept for garrus you captured his chara well) unnecessary story crappy final boss, your problem is you make too big a changes too quickley just take it slow and actually make it "Dragon age"

[Onyx Jaguar]

slimgrin wrote...

poisonoustea wrote...

Perhaps I am wrong, but culd you point out 10 games which have the things in bold and are NOT popularly called RPGs?

Seriously, would you call Diablo an RPG?

Diablo is an action rpg, and it has more customization than ME1 and ME2 combined. People here seem to bash this game a lot, but it has its roots in old school rpg mechanics. 

One of the Original Old School RPG mechanics

[Haexpane]

slimgrin wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

 but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.

Harsh but true.

Anyone extolling story in a video game, saying that it should be the overwhelming focus of an rpg, needs to take a trip to the local library. Video game stories are still quite hackneyed by literary standards. Even the best of them. Many gamers praise the story when done well, because the bar has already been set so low. Better that developers continue to focus and innovate where it counts the most: gameplay. And story can act as a framework.


Edit: just read your post Kalfear, and I basically agree. Ideally, nothing should get nerfed. But as an avid reader, I can't help but put in my two cents on the element of story in games.  

I wasn't intentionally trying to be harsh, and I love many vidoegame stories, like ICO and SOTC and KOTOR I/II for example.

KOTORs are great star wars stories, and got me back into the SW universe.  But compare them to Watchmen GN or Grant Morrison's All Star Superman and you get the idea.

Ironically Grant Morrison is modeling his Batman INC on the concept of american franchising business models and Call of Duty games, which I find disturbing, but it's GM so I'm sure it will be fun.

I'm also the first person to openly admit that LOTR films are an atrocious bore w/ terrible stories.  It's mostly about Hobbit Bromance.


Vertigo's Scalped is IMO a great example of strong story telling.   or

Walking Dead

[Haexpane]

Sidney wrote...


The roleplaying Taliban thinks

Time the lock the thread, someone pulled the Fox News hyperbole card.

[DPB]

MuDDVayNe wrote...

*sigh* bioware you always seem to **** up your sequels dont you, mass effect 1 amazing original game with great customization aspects along with a epic story behind it, Mass effect 2 dull bland concept boring unresponsive characters (exept for garrus you captured his chara well) unnecessary story crappy final boss, your problem is you make too big a changes too quickley just take it slow and actually make it "Dragon age"

Bioware has only ever made two sequels - BG2 and ME2 (three if you count MDK2, but that wasn't a sequel to one of their own games) so I'm not sure how you can say 'always.'

[maxernst]

Sidney wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

We know peoples definitions of RPGs are different. But fundamentally speaking the better ones have always had levels, skills, loot, and a lot of combat. The best ones also incorporated story, hence KotOR being the single greatest rpg ever made in many peoples minds.

Skills and stats I agree with 100%. No problems there. Your character does things in RPG's not you. A big gripe with Oblivion was lock picking was done by me, not my character. In FO3 I had to solve stupid hacking puzzles not my character. Same gripe with ME2 where I am not very good at shooter combat and thus Shep, no matter his background, isn't good at using guns. Those are all poor elements in an RPG.

The rest, not so much. Yes the best games had the things you list but that is an artifact of the fact that ALL of them had it. Plenty of crappy RPG;s had those elements. Most of the great games succeeded in spit of their inventory systems though. BG2 certainly never gripped anyone for combat.

Leveling, so does that mean - and just trying to tie to any vague sense of reality - that if you write a game that covers 3 days you can't have an RPG because there's no way your *foo* skill gets any better over just three days? Is thier a minimum amount of leveling, what if I have 2 levels? Is that enough to be an RPG?

Looting --  I don't even know where that came from. I thought it was a relic of pen and paper but god help me i actually watched a pen and paper session - or part of it- here: and there was no looting in that whole sessions other than the thing they went into a dungeon to get. Maybe that's an oddity but is that not an RPG session?

The bigger problem is that looting, per se, isn't even the problem. There is, contrary to the opinions of some, looting in ME2. You acquire money from locked chests...err umm, safes. You get magical runes, oh wait I mean weapons upgrades. You find blueprints for new guns. I've never gotten the ME2 hate because looting is actaully meaningful. The things you find are useful. What seems to cheese folks off is that you don't find the useless crap that overwhelms you like a tidal wave of vendor trash in DAO, ME, KoTOR or BG2. I think more than anything that is what most folks want to see go the way of the Dodo Bird. I like The Summer Sword, I don't like Worn Leather gloves.

I'd have more sympathy for the inventory management as strategy mini-game crowd if there was any strategy. There's a distinct hierarchy of weaponry and armor in DAO, or BG2 or FO1,2,3 for that matter. 95% of everyone has the same stuff at the end of the game. There's not much trick to it. Your inventory capacity is so bloated that you aren't having to make any trade off in any of those games anyway. You can drag along 3 suits of armor if you want and enough swords to start your own army. If the game made me make a shotgun or Tommy Gun type decision for my next mission because I can only hold one gun at a time (like a real person) then that might be an interesting part of the game because you have to think about your tactics and the scenario you are going into  but having a mysterious parallel dimension where I can truck along the National Armory isn't.

Saying you need combat is saying that there are types of roles you can't do. There's no way to role play a game as a pacifist? Quaker role playing is impossible?

I think the possibility of combat should probably always be in an RPG to be honest, simply because violence is one way that people try to resolve problems in the real world.  But it's only one way, and I find it boring that it's the only way to solve most problems in a lot of games.  In Bioware games, you can go through 90% of the combats with no strategy or the same strategy repeated over and over again...as far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of the combats didn't add anything to my gameplay experience.  They're just there to pad gameplay hours, like the endless random dungeons in Bethesda's games.  If all these combat offered unique challenges, I might be feel differently, but they don't..  But then, I don't care for games like Diablo except as a mindless way to pass the time if I'm particularly bored.  Maybe it's a been there/done that thing.  In my pen & paper gaming days, the first five years or so were all hack & slash, later gaming had very little combat.

As to Heavy Rain, I'm very interested in it, but it's not available on PC is it?  The problem I have with adventure games in general is that they have typically been very linear, with only way to solve problems.  As beautifully made as a game like Grim Fandango is, you'll never get much of a conversation going with someone about how they played the game as opposed to you, there's just one way through.

As I'm just starting to play ME now, I can't say how I feel about ME2, but it seems to me that ME2 (unlike DA2) was clearly marketed as a shooter/RPG hybrid, not a pure RPG.  I will say the awful inventory interface in ME makes me feel that I won't miss an inventory much in ME2.

[SirOccam]

ENHbrometheus wrote...

In my view, they leave it vague so as to not disappoint their "hardcore" audience, typically the forum goers. A lot of what they have said is pointing in the direction of simplifying things beyond a comfortable threshold for most gamers who loved DA:O (take that as you will.), myself included.

Keep in mind it's also 7+ months before the game is due to be released. Do you really expect a detailed rundown of every aspect of the game? Of course it's going to be vague. We don't have to jump to any conclusions now, positive or negative.

It's not a ridiculous assumption when you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who has played a Bioware game in the past (ME1), only to see its RPG elements gutted and left on the floor of the development room in favor of a more streamlined shooter designed for consoles. In my opinion they even downgraded the story.

That's your opinion, and that's fine, but I disagree that the RPG elements were gutted. I think the things that were taken out or simplified were things that needed to be taken out or simplified. I thought the RPG aspects of the game were better as a result. But this is just my opinion, and our differences stem from the more fundamental differences people have as to what makes an RPG an RPG, which has been discussed to death here and elsewhere.

Some people see inventory management and all that as crucial to a game's RPG-ness, whereas I see it as detrimental. Neither of us is going to be able to convince the other that he is wrong, because it's not about right or wrong. But then you are trying to make it about right or wrong by claiming that BioWare are doing these things out of greed or whatever. All that may be happening is the game is shifting more towards what people like me like in their RPGs instead of what people like you like. But even then, it's so vague that we can't really even know what's happening yet.

And in what way are those statements not logical? As someone who has chronicled the statements said so far by Bioware, in what ways are they appealing to fans of DA:O? In what ways are they not opting to streamline the game to chase a bigger audience? I ask because of all people you should know, or at least be able to provide a time where they announced they were expanding or creating something, rather than cutting back.

How about expanding our knowledge of Thedas? Showing us a brand new country? Allowing us to play a character who isn't bound by "the mission" above all? Brand new face morph system from scratch, allowing for much more appearance customization? The ability to customize spells?

You'll notice that in my list I don't include things like "streamlined combat system" precisely because they are so vague. I deal in facts, not guesswork or speculation. For example, it seems pretty obvious to me that we are getting the same 3 classes as DA:O, yet the only one specifically confirmed has been mage, so that's the only one that's on the list. There have been mentions of Warrior and Rogue, more than enough to convince me personally that they'll be back, but I can't say it's a fact yet.

And another thing, you speak as though "cutting back" is always a bad thing. The truth is that some things need to be cut back in order to be better. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. An example of this is DA:O's ability system. There were simply too many of them, both activated and sustained. This was especially bad on consoles, where you only get 6 macro slots, but even on PC it was bad, especially after Awakening. I think simplifying the sheer quantity of spells was a very good idea.

I will gladly eat my shoe the day that information comes out and proves me wrong. I am waiting for that day with bated breath. Hopefully I'll see it on your topic, where they announce the return of the isometric view, and provide a definitive answer on tools to create mods, to name a few of the things I hope to see. Until then I'll call out their PR talk and hype machine for what it is. Here's to hoping, but not expecting, for good news that indicates otherwise.

That's exactly my point, though. How can they announce the return of the isometric view when they have not yet announced its departure, except on consoles who never had it in the first place? It's the same thing with the toolset. They haven't said no, they've told us why it won't come out at the same time and why it might come out later. You're choosing to take this as PR-speak or lying, when it's perfectly reasonable that it could all be exactly as they say. It makes sense that the old toolset won't work, but they don't need to make a brand new toolset, right? I don't understand why we should all be so pessimistic and demand to be proven wrong, when we could just wait and see what the answers are.

Modifié par SirOccam, 13 août 2010 - 10:33 .

[Merced256]

Sidney wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

We know peoples definitions of RPGs are different. But fundamentally speaking the better ones have always had levels, skills, loot, and a lot of combat. The best ones also incorporated story, hence KotOR being the single greatest rpg ever made in many peoples minds.

Leveling, so does that mean - and just trying to tie to any vague sense of reality - that if you write a game that covers 3 days you can't have an RPG because there's no way your *foo* skill gets any better over just three days? Is thier a minimum amount of leveling, what if I have 2 levels? Is that enough to be an RPG?

Perhaps Technically.

Leveling is a mechanic to convey "character progression/advancement." The timeline or frame that your character progressed within is irrelevant. The important thing, from a rpg perspective, is the growth of the character. Some people enjoy taking a character from a poor farmer's son that can only swing a shovel in to a great warrior capable of defeating powerful foes with skills he has learned over his journey. Others care for something more akin to character development. Or how the character has grown emotionally or as a person. I would contend the better games incorporate both of these.

Note again, that ME2 lacks this completely because shep can defeat the game on any difficulty although with scaling levels of tedious without ever taking a single skill or talent. This is the gripe. People call ME2 a RPG but its leveling/character progression systems are meaningless fluff tacked on to a FPS in order for it be technically labeled a RPG. Disagree if you wish, but you won't convince anyone that ME2's "RPG elements" weren't a glaring weak point of the game.

Looting --  I don't even know where that came from. I thought it was a relic of pen and paper but god help me i actually watched a pen and paper session - or part of it- here: and there was no looting in that whole sessions other than the thing they went into a dungeon to get. Maybe that's an oddity but is that not an RPG session?

It is, how exactly do you purpose PnP RPG sessions handle junk loot or chests that allow you to use minigames like ME2's hacking or lockpicking? They can't, and since they are there with the implict intention of role playing; loot is obviously less of a concern.

The bigger problem is that looting, per se, isn't even the problem. There is, contrary to the opinions of some, looting in ME2. You acquire money from locked chests...err umm, safes. You get magical runes, oh wait I mean weapons upgrades. You find blueprints for new guns. I've never gotten the ME2 hate because looting is actaully meaningful. The things you find are useful. What seems to cheese folks off is that you don't find the useless crap that overwhelms you like a tidal wave of vendor trash in DAO, ME, KoTOR or BG2. I think more than anything that is what most folks want to see go the way of the Dodo Bird. I like The Summer Sword, I don't like Worn Leather gloves.

Sure there was "loot" in ME2. But it was all currency for buying ship decorations(omg awesome:whistle:) and armor/weapon upgrades that did very little other than change appearence. Don't even suggest +5% health on a leg armor augmentation was going to make or break any engagement. So essentially, just like the leveling/skills in ME2, the loot was worthless and an aspect of the game that could've been completely ignored. Since those two system have been staples of every good RPG since the begining of computer based RPGs what does that make ME2 exactly? It makes it a FPS with rpg elements. Not a RPG with FPS elements. Especially since we typically judge objects by the sum of their parts.. i have to say ME2's RPG parts were quite horrible.

I'd have more sympathy for the inventory management as strategy mini-game crowd if there was any strategy. There's a distinct hierarchy of weaponry and armor in DAO, or BG2 or FO1,2,3 for that matter. 95% of everyone has the same stuff at the end of the game. There's not much trick to it. Your inventory capacity is so bloated that you aren't having to make any trade off in any of those games anyway. You can drag along 3 suits of armor if you want and enough swords to start your own army. If the game made me make a shotgun or Tommy Gun type decision for my next mission because I can only hold one gun at a time (like a real person) then that might be an interesting part of the game because you have to think about your tactics and the scenario you are going into  but having a mysterious parallel dimension where I can truck along the National Armory isn't.

I get what you're saying, but whats the point of tacking on system with loot if it can be safely ignored? All of that armor, all those swords, they are all a means to an end. In ME2 they weren't even that. They were fashion accessories. I didn't buy barbie doll adventures. What i bought was what i thought was a RPG that melded in a good story and combat. Sadly what makes an RPG an RPG was missing. My bad.

The other function of loot is to enhance the content the player has to go through to get that boss fight or that key lore momment. If you just breezed through 100 trash mobs with only a few coppers to loot you'd be pretty bored of killing those trash mobs right? Random loot drops add an element of surprise and enjoyment to that drudgery for a fairly significant demographic.

Saying you need combat is saying that there are types of roles you can't do. There's no way to role play a game as a pacifist? Quaker role playing is impossible?

Name a real RPG that was 100% completable without any form of combat or violence. Lets face it, combat adds entertainment, complexity, and to an extent realism through the gravity of events that lead up to the conflict. Also, in some ways combat is what distinguishes a RPG from something like Myst or Riven. I mean hell even monkey island has combat, unavoidable combat even. Guess you can't roleplay that game either, especially since the story is on rails and theres no jumping off that roller coaster.

So i'll spell it out one more time. ME2 is not a RPG by any standard other than what it technically took to be able to lable it as such. So i'll be politically correct and say that at least a significant demographic of DA:O fans don't want to see DA2's RPG elements to be as weak as they were in ME2. Meaning we want the RPG elements to actually contribute to the game in real and meaningful ways. So far not many of that large demographic are convinced DA2 will be anything other than Dragon Effect. I don't blame them.

Modifié par Merced256, 13 août 2010 - 10:43 .

[SirOccam]

Merced256 wrote...
Sure there was "loot" in ME2. But it was all currency for buying ship decorations(omg awesome:whistle:) and armor/weapon upgrades that did very little other than change appearence. Don't even suggest +5% health on a leg armor augmentation was going to make or break any engagement. So essentially, just like the leveling/skills in ME2, the loot was worthless and an aspect of the game that could've been completely ignored.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It has to be absolutely vital to every engagement from the point of acquisition or else it's worthless? When has anyone ever said that?

And anyway, a 5% boost is demonstrably better than a 0% boost. That's the point. Not that everything has to be like a 50% boost, but that it should be a clear upgrade. At least in my opinion. In DAO there was so much loot that was only different in ridiculously small ways that it made it hard to know what was actually an upgrade. Is +armor penetration better or +attack? How much of each is comparable to how much of the other? Compounded by having several characters who should theoretically be considered before selling that weapon...it just gets annoying, not fun. Fun is finding a weapon and knowing it's better than what you have. Or even that just looks cool. Again...in my opinion.

Modifié par SirOccam, 13 août 2010 - 10:46 .

[maxernst]

Merced256 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

We know peoples definitions of RPGs are different. But fundamentally speaking the better ones have always had levels, skills, loot, and a lot of combat. The best ones also incorporated story, hence KotOR being the single greatest rpg ever made in many peoples minds.

Leveling, so does that mean - and just trying to tie to any vague sense of reality - that if you write a game that covers 3 days you can't have an RPG because there's no way your *foo* skill gets any better over just three days? Is thier a minimum amount of leveling, what if I have 2 levels? Is that enough to be an RPG?

Perhaps Technically.

Leveling is a mechanic to convey "character progression/advancement." The timeline or frame that your character progressed within is irrelevant. The important thing, from a rpg perspective, is the growth of the character. Some people enjoy taking a character from a poor farmer's son that can only swing a shovel in to a great warrior capable of defeating powerful foes with skills he has learned over his journey. Others care for something more akin to character development. Or how the character has grown emotionally or as a person. I would contend the better games incorporate both of these.

Note again, that ME2 lacks this completely because shep can defeat the game on any difficulty although with scaling levels of tedious without ever taking a single skill or talent. This is the gripe. People call ME2 a RPG but its leveling/character progression systems are meaningless fluff tacked on to a FPS in order for it be technically labeled a RPG. Disagree if you wish, but you won't convince anyone that ME2's "RPG elements" weren't a glaring weak point of the game.

Looting --  I don't even know where that came from. I thought it was a relic of pen and paper but god help me i actually watched a pen and paper session - or part of it- here: and there was no looting in that whole sessions other than the thing they went into a dungeon to get. Maybe that's an oddity but is that not an RPG session?

It is, how exactly do you purpose PnP RPG sessions handle junk loot or chests that allow you to use minigames like ME2's hacking or lockpicking? They can't, and since they are there with the implict intention of role playing; loot is obviously less of a concern.

The bigger problem is that looting, per se, isn't even the problem. There is, contrary to the opinions of some, looting in ME2. You acquire money from locked chests...err umm, safes. You get magical runes, oh wait I mean weapons upgrades. You find blueprints for new guns. I've never gotten the ME2 hate because looting is actaully meaningful. The things you find are useful. What seems to cheese folks off is that you don't find the useless crap that overwhelms you like a tidal wave of vendor trash in DAO, ME, KoTOR or BG2. I think more than anything that is what most folks want to see go the way of the Dodo Bird. I like The Summer Sword, I don't like Worn Leather gloves.

Sure there was "loot" in ME2. But it was all currency for buying ship decorations(omg awesome:whistle:) and armor/weapon upgrades that did very little other than change appearence. Don't even suggest +5% health on a leg armor augmentation was going to make or break any engagement. So essentially, just like the leveling/skills in ME2, the loot was worthless and an aspect of the game that could've been completely ignored. Since those two system have been staples of every good RPG since the begining of computer based RPGs what does that make ME2 exactly? It makes it a FPS with rpg elements. Not a RPG with FPS elements. Especially since we typically judge objects by the sum of their parts.. i have to say ME2's RPG parts were quite horrible.

I'd have more sympathy for the inventory management as strategy mini-game crowd if there was any strategy. There's a distinct hierarchy of weaponry and armor in DAO, or BG2 or FO1,2,3 for that matter. 95% of everyone has the same stuff at the end of the game. There's not much trick to it. Your inventory capacity is so bloated that you aren't having to make any trade off in any of those games anyway. You can drag along 3 suits of armor if you want and enough swords to start your own army. If the game made me make a shotgun or Tommy Gun type decision for my next mission because I can only hold one gun at a time (like a real person) then that might be an interesting part of the game because you have to think about your tactics and the scenario you are going into  but having a mysterious parallel dimension where I can truck along the National Armory isn't.

I get what you're saying, but whats the point of tacking on system with loot if it can be safely ignored? All of that armor, all those swords, they are all a means to an end. In ME2 they weren't even that. They were fashion accessories. I didn't buy barbie doll adventures. What i bought was what i thought was a RPG that melded in a good story and combat. Sadly what makes an RPG an RPG was missing. My bad.

The other function of loot is to enhance the content the player has to go through to get that boss fight or that key lore momment. If you just breezed through 100 trash mobs with only a few coppers to loot you'd be pretty bored of killing those trash mobs right? Random loot drops add an element of surprise and enjoyment to that drudgery for a fairly significant demographic.

Saying you need combat is saying that there are types of roles you can't do. There's no way to role play a game as a pacifist? Quaker role playing is impossible?

Name a real RPG that was 100% completable without any form of combat or violence.

Fallout. Also Fallout 2.

[MuDDVayNe]

dbankier wrote...

MuDDVayNe wrote...

*sigh* bioware you always seem to **** up your sequels dont you, mass effect 1 amazing original game with great customization aspects along with a epic story behind it, Mass effect 2 dull bland concept boring unresponsive characters (exept for garrus you captured his chara well) unnecessary story crappy final boss, your problem is you make too big a changes too quickley just take it slow and actually make it "Dragon age"

Bioware has only ever made two sequels - BG2 and ME2 (three if you count MDK2, but that wasn't a sequel to one of their own games) so I'm not sure how you can say 'always.'

Thats not the point of my statement now is it? i was merely useing ME as an example and not much more, the point of my statement is how bioware needs to calm down and take it easy and make this game right all the other "magor" changes will have there time in the series.

[SirOccam]

Merced256 wrote...

Saying you need combat is saying that there are types of roles you can't do. There's no way to role play a game as a pacifist? Quaker role playing is impossible?

Name a real RPG that was 100% completable without any form of combat or violence.

Just because it hasn't been done (if that is indeed the case; looks like someone has an answer for you anyway) doesn't mean it's impossible.

[Merced256]

SirOccam wrote...

Merced256 wrote...
Sure there was "loot" in ME2. But it was all currency for buying ship decorations(omg awesome:whistle:) and armor/weapon upgrades that did very little other than change appearence. Don't even suggest +5% health on a leg armor augmentation was going to make or break any engagement. So essentially, just like the leveling/skills in ME2, the loot was worthless and an aspect of the game that could've been completely ignored.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It has to be absolutely vital to every engagement from the point of acquisition or else it's worthless? When has anyone ever said that?

Because loot is also a function of character progression. Better items, things you spent currency on, should have a meaningful influence on the way the game is played at the point of aquisition. That can be in the form of changing tactics or making your weapon noticably more accurate, etc etc etc. It utterly fails to accomplish any of that in ME2. Even when you get the new rifle in ME2 its just another less accurate, slightly more damaging weapon that changes the game in no meaningful way. It doesn't make it easier, nor harder, it just makes you have to hold down the mouse a fraction of a second less than you previously did. Totally awesome.

I'm not saying loot should define your character, in fact i would go so far as to say it shouldn't. But it should have its place. Meaning loot should make you better, not incredibly so, but noticably so. Thats just not the case in ME2.

[SirOccam]

MuDDVayNe wrote...

dbankier wrote...

MuDDVayNe wrote...

*sigh* bioware you always seem to **** up your sequels dont you, mass effect 1 amazing original game with great customization aspects along with a epic story behind it, Mass effect 2 dull bland concept boring unresponsive characters (exept for garrus you captured his chara well) unnecessary story crappy final boss, your problem is you make too big a changes too quickley just take it slow and actually make it "Dragon age"

Bioware has only ever made two sequels - BG2 and ME2 (three if you count MDK2, but that wasn't a sequel to one of their own games) so I'm not sure how you can say 'always.'

Thats not the point of my statement now is it? i was merely useing ME as an example and not much more, the point of my statement is how bioware needs to calm down and take it easy and make this game right all the other "magor" changes will have there time in the series.

The point of your statement appeared to be trying to use BioWare's "track record" to extrapolate about how DA2 is going to be. dbanker's point was that it's a statistically insignificant sample size.

[maxernst]

Merced256 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Perhaps Technically.

Leveling is a mechanic to convey "character progression/advancement." The timeline or frame that your character progressed within is irrelevant. The important thing, from a rpg perspective, is the growth of the character. Some people enjoy taking a character from a poor farmer's son that can only swing a shovel in to a great warrior capable of defeating powerful foes with skills he has learned over his journey. Others care for something more akin to character development. Or how the character has grown emotionally or as a person. I would contend the better games incorporate both of these.

Note again, that ME2 lacks this completely because shep can defeat the game on any difficulty although with scaling levels of tedious without ever taking a single skill or talent. This is the gripe. People call ME2 a RPG but its leveling/character progression systems are meaningless fluff tacked on to a FPS in order for it be technically labeled a RPG. Disagree if you wish, but you won't convince anyone that ME2's "RPG elements" weren't a glaring weak point of the game.

So the pen & paper game Traveller was not an RPG?  IIRC, you acquired all your skills through your schooling during the character generation process.  It's true that most RPG's have emphasized the levelling/looting aspect, but one of the very earliest ones didn't.

[SirOccam]

Merced256 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Merced256 wrote...
Sure there was "loot" in ME2. But it was all currency for buying ship decorations(omg awesome:whistle:) and armor/weapon upgrades that did very little other than change appearence. Don't even suggest +5% health on a leg armor augmentation was going to make or break any engagement. So essentially, just like the leveling/skills in ME2, the loot was worthless and an aspect of the game that could've been completely ignored.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It has to be absolutely vital to every engagement from the point of acquisition or else it's worthless? When has anyone ever said that?

Because loot is also a function of character progression. Better items, things you spent currency on, should have a meaningful influence on the way the game is played at the point of aquisition. That can be in the form of changing tactics or making your weapon noticably more accurate, etc etc etc. It utterly fails to accomplish any of that in ME2. Even when you get the new rifle in ME2 its just another less accurate, slightly more damaging weapon that changes the game in no meaningful way. It doesn't make it easier, nor harder, it just makes you have to hold down the mouse a fraction of a second less than you previously did. Totally awesome.

I'm not saying loot should define your character, in fact i would go so far as to say it shouldn't. But it should have its place. Meaning loot should make you better, not incredibly so, but noticably so. Thats just not the case in ME2.

Is that any more the case in DAO, though? I agree that loot upgrades should be meaningful, or at least apparent.

That 5% health boost on a leg augmentation might not mean the difference between life and death, but it's an obvious upgrade over having nothing there. Meanwhile, you get 10 different kinds of weapons that all look about the same in DAO.

[ENHbrometheus]

SirOccam wrote...

-That's your opinion, and that's fine, but I disagree that the RPG elements were gutted. I think the things that were taken out or simplified were things that needed to be taken out or simplified. I thought the RPG aspects of the game were better as a result. But this is just my opinion, and our differences stem from the more fundamental differences people have as to what makes an RPG an RPG, which has been discussed to death here and elsewhere.

That I agree with.

-Some people see inventory management and all that as crucial to a game's RPG-ness, whereas I see it as detrimental. Neither of us is going to be able to convince the other that he is wrong, because it's not about right or wrong. But then you are trying to make it about right or wrong by claiming that BioWare are doing these things out of greed or whatever. All that may be happening is the game is shifting more towards what people like me like in their RPGs instead of what people like you like. But even then, it's so vague that we can't really even know what's happening yet.

I feel they're cutting back in an effort to make the game more easily accessable, and while it may come off as an arrogant remark, I do not feel, as an RPG, that is needs to be made more accessable. The RPG elements in DA:O were largely a part of the appeal for me, I love having a retinue of spells at my disposal and a near countless numbers of way to customize my character through skills and such. I also love the huge inventory of amassed goods. I've played DA:O for around 205 hours, and I'm not done yet, if that gives you any indication. I'll probably play it for another 200 and beyond.

-How about expanding our knowledge of Thedas? Showing us a brand new country? Allowing us to play a character who isn't bound by "the mission" above all? Brand new face morph system from scratch, allowing for much more appearance customization? The ability to customize spells?

What you listed seems more of what comes naturally with a sequel than anything. I also view the overhaul in graphics largely unnecessary and I would rather more spells than customizable ones, but again that's a minor argument.

-That's exactly my point, though. How can they announce the return of the isometric view when they have not yet announced its departure, except on consoles who never had it in the first place? It's the same thing with the toolset. They haven't said no, they've told us why it won't come out at the same time and why it might come out later. You're choosing to take this as PR-speak or lying, when it's perfectly reasonable that it could all be exactly as they say. It makes sense that the old toolset won't work, but they don't need to make a brand new toolset, right? I don't understand why we should all be so pessimistic and demand to be proven wrong, when we could just wait and see what the answers are.

They've given very unneasy maybes in place of verifying that those features will be back, and with isometric view I'm quite sure they announced it was out in favor of a new, more dynamic "tactical" view. I just see it as evidence of a lesser product being made

 
Again, with this forum I'm not sure how to have those boxes like you had, so your statements are preceded with a - for simplicity.

Modifié par ENHbrometheus, 13 août 2010 - 10:55 .

[Merced256]

Fallout. Also Fallout 2.

I wanted to be technical in this case, thus the "100%" meaning every plot and storyline completed in a manner that avoided combat.

But given i've never been a fan of post nuclear apocolypse settings i can't confirm or deny that, but ok. So fallout and fallout 2 had the options to complete the game with literally no combat. Now i in no way have tangible evidence to back this up, but i will say that far and away that most took part in combat within that game at some point during any given play through. And i'll say that with absolute confidence that its true, even if i'm unable to prove it.

[AlanC9]

MuDDVayNe wrote...

Thats not the point of my statement now is it?

When someone says "you always seem to **** up your sequels " that means that he's identified a pattern in how they do sequels. Unless, of course, the post is just meaningless noise trying to sound convincing.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 août 2010 - 10:57 .

[Merced256]

maxernst wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Perhaps Technically.

Leveling is a mechanic to convey "character progression/advancement." The timeline or frame that your character progressed within is irrelevant. The important thing, from a rpg perspective, is the growth of the character. Some people enjoy taking a character from a poor farmer's son that can only swing a shovel in to a great warrior capable of defeating powerful foes with skills he has learned over his journey. Others care for something more akin to character development. Or how the character has grown emotionally or as a person. I would contend the better games incorporate both of these.

Note again, that ME2 lacks this completely because shep can defeat the game on any difficulty although with scaling levels of tedious without ever taking a single skill or talent. This is the gripe. People call ME2 a RPG but its leveling/character progression systems are meaningless fluff tacked on to a FPS in order for it be technically labeled a RPG. Disagree if you wish, but you won't convince anyone that ME2's "RPG elements" weren't a glaring weak point of the game.

So the pen & paper game Traveller was not an RPG?  IIRC, you acquired all your skills through your schooling during the character generation process.  It's true that most RPG's have emphasized the levelling/looting aspect, but one of the very earliest ones didn't.

Not in the traditional sense. If your character progressed in no tangible way through out the game then no, its very blstantly not a RPG by traditional standards. Its a game like Myst or Riven with the way you go about playing determined at the character creation screen.

[maxernst]

Merced256 wrote...

Fallout. Also Fallout 2.

I wanted to be technical in this case, thus the "100%" meaning every plot and storyline completed in a manner that avoided combat.

But given i've never been a fan of post nuclear apocolypse settings i can't confirm or deny that, but ok. So fallout and fallout 2 had the options to complete the game with literally no combat. Now i in no way have tangible evidence to back this up, but i will say that far and away that most took part in combat within that game at some point during any given play through. And i'll say that with absolute confidence that its true, even if i'm unable to prove it.

Okay, there are some things that you would need combat if you want to do, but you can complete the games without combat.  It's not usually something people attempt on a first playthrough, but the choice is available.  You can go through an awful lot of Planescape: Torment without combat too.  I had one play through where Ravel Puzzlewell was my second combat in the game.  Arcanum's another one.

But I don't see why it couldn't be done.  Thief is not an RPG, I'll grant you, but I can't see any reason why you couldn't have a similar style of gameplay within an RPG framework. Avoiding combat is a very common gameplay choice in the Thief games.  Some people have gone so far as to go through the game "ghosting" where they're never even seen by a hostile, let alone fighting one.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Saying you need combat is saying that there are types of roles you can't do. There's no way to role play a game as a pacifist? Quaker role playing is impossible?

Name a real RPG that was 100% completable without any form of combat or violence.

Just because it hasn't been done (if that is indeed the case; looks like someone has an answer for you anyway) doesn't mean it's impossible.

an rpg can't be done without combat, because if there's no combat and only exploration, it's an adventure game.
And even if it was an adventure game where you level up skills like persuasion and intimidation, it would reach a point where you can't advance bacause if you fail a persuasion check you do not pass to the next section.And where do you go to grind for xp points to increase your persuasion skill if there's no combat? solving previous riddles or missions? shouldn't an adventure-investigation game rely on the players actual intelligence to resolve riddles instead of depending on a skill point of your character?

the same can be said for action rpgs. I want an rpg to reward me for the management of my character and my wise use of tactics, not to rely on my button mashing reflexes to compensate a poor character build.

I like to play slow, with a cigarrette on my hand, a drink on the table and laid back on my chair, I don't want to be on the edge of my seat dodging attacks in tenths of a second and mashing a gamepad, when I feel like that I play metal slug

Modifié par filetemo, 13 août 2010 - 11:02 .

[Merced256]

SirOccam wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Merced256 wrote...
Sure there was "loot" in ME2. But it was all currency for buying ship decorations(omg awesome:whistle:) and armor/weapon upgrades that did very little other than change appearence. Don't even suggest +5% health on a leg armor augmentation was going to make or break any engagement. So essentially, just like the leveling/skills in ME2, the loot was worthless and an aspect of the game that could've been completely ignored.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? It has to be absolutely vital to every engagement from the point of acquisition or else it's worthless? When has anyone ever said that?

Because loot is also a function of character progression. Better items, things you spent currency on, should have a meaningful influence on the way the game is played at the point of aquisition. That can be in the form of changing tactics or making your weapon noticably more accurate, etc etc etc. It utterly fails to accomplish any of that in ME2. Even when you get the new rifle in ME2 its just another less accurate, slightly more damaging weapon that changes the game in no meaningful way. It doesn't make it easier, nor harder, it just makes you have to hold down the mouse a fraction of a second less than you previously did. Totally awesome.

I'm not saying loot should define your character, in fact i would go so far as to say it shouldn't. But it should have its place. Meaning loot should make you better, not incredibly so, but noticably so. Thats just not the case in ME2.

Is that any more the case in DAO, though? I agree that loot upgrades should be meaningful, or at least apparent.

That 5% health boost on a leg augmentation might not mean the difference between life and death, but it's an obvious upgrade over having nothing there. Meanwhile, you get 10 different kinds of weapons that all look about the same in DAO.

I agree that DA:O's loot was weak as well. I even said so in this thread a few pages back. I recall loot being a major gripe about DA:O in the early days after release as well. Bioware decided to remedy it by making DLC's with ridiculously overpowered loot. But despite that, there was still loot that made incredible differences in your tactics or ability in DA:O. Especially the items you had to spend 100+ gold on to acquire. Literally nothing in ME2 had the impact on gameplay like just one of those items in DA:O did. But again i agree on the whole DA:O's loot was horrible.