1133 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

ENHbrometheus wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

-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.

I disagree almost entirely. No one said they had to abandon the standard "mission to save the world" theme that worked in ME and DAO. No one said we had to go to a different country, and if some people had their way we'd still be playing as our Warden. No one said they had to give us the ability to customize our spells; that, too, is a huge change. Regardless, all of these things are expanding instead of cutting back. Even if you take them for granted for some reason, they are still there. It's not all restriction, as you made out earlier.

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

Perhaps maybes are all they can give us? Again, there's still more than half a year to go before the game is due to be released. That's a long time. It's still no excuse for taking everything they say and blowing it out of proportion, though perhaps it is not entirely unexpected.

[Sidney]

Merced256 wrote...

1. 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.

2. ure 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.

3.  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.

4. 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?

5. 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.

1. That is a thin rationalization about not needing the skill point. I could finish DAO without ever using a skill point. I could rather easily set up a script of  : 1. Self Health < 25% Use Health Poultice Most Powerful  2. Enemy > Nearest > Attack  The only thing I'd even need levels for, with scaling, are for a handful of foes that won't scale down far enough. I still agree though that ME2's gun combat isn't apt for an full RPG experience but any game with enough health potions and serious level scaling create the same effect.

2. You do realize that most armor/weapons in DAO add nothing but marginal gains, when my spellpower is 50 and I have a +2 spellpower staff that is a +4% to spellpower device. All those rings +10% nature damage ring a bell? You'd feel better about ME2 if the armor was +15% or something you feel is more meaningful. You are making awfully fine distinction and really there's not even much in the way of distinctions.

3. You can't ignore the loot in ME2. Niggle about the armor and helmets but there are very obvious weapon upgrades, armor upgrades and such, there are also all the research products that you either loot or else you purchase with the output of loot.  Like you'd feel a lot better if instead of getting "Heavy Skin Weave" research product that gives you better armor +15% you want an Amulet of Armor +15%.  The ignorable loot is all the vendor trash in most games. Again, we all want to kill a dragon sitting on a huge mound of gold, gems and super coool magicaly doohickeys. What no one should want to do is pull a few arrows out of a dead genlocks quiver and then  steal the battered shield of the hurlock next to him. Inventory as it is implemnted in most games is the enemy because of vendor trash not because of cool stuff.

4. Again random loot drops aren't exciting. Are you breathless with anticipation of your next "spirit shard", "Darkspawn Dagger" or "Leather Armor". You know what Genlock Archer is gonna have, and it sucks. No, the only loot drops you really care about are the orange guys because they have the items you want. Instead, you spend as much time clicking on dead bodies for crap as you do spend killing the bodies so you can loot them - time it, in most mob fights you'll drop your foes faster than you can loot them. Looting is not the way to make dungeon slogging better, the answer is better dungeons and more varied combat.

5. Someone dropped FO/FO2, best bets for non-violent play. I agree that combat is fun and I might not want to play the Quakers Age: Origins but the notion that because it doesn't interest me means it couldn't be an RPG just sin't something I'm comfortable with.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

 It's still no excuse for taking everything they say and blowing it out of proportion

yes, it is, bioware does an horrible job at marketing their game.

only seven months till game release and they gave us:

a set of horrible screenshots,claiming "don't worry, it's pre-alpha"
don't worry with only 7 months left??? pre-alpha 7 months left??? why do you even release pre alpha shots if they look so bad?

then they tell us to wait for august 17 and their first trailer, which we don't even know if it's a teaser or gameplay or cgi

You just can't unload a crappy set of media like that and give no further explanation for weeks. Bioware's timing is awfully bad when it comes to hype, instead of hype they create rage. Why there's no new screenshots of DA2? they should release a new set looking much better for some damage control.

[maxernst]

filetemo wrote...

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 discussion, however is about games where there doesn't have to be combat, not where there's no possibility of combat. That's a different thing, which is why I brought up the Fallout and Thief games. And lots of traditional RPG's (NOT CRPG's) gave you experience only for completing objectives, not killing stuff.  Even in games like DA:O, you get a lot of your experience for completing quests.

And are you really horribly offended by games that give you different dialogue options based on the character's intelligence, charm or persuasion skills?  What makes combat so special that it shouldn't have anything to do with the player's aim or reflexes, but everything else should depend on the player's abilities?

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

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.

That seems, to me, to be a totally arbitrary declaration, not to mention circular in logic. "RPGs have to have combat, because if they don't have combat then they're not RPGs."

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.

Who says you have to get stuck? There are plenty of opportunities to
fail persuasion checks in DAO without having to resort to violence. It
just means you have to find another way around.

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?

LOL, I love this question. "And where do you go to grind for xp points to increase your persuasion skill?" LOL. Why does there have to be xp grinding at all?

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?

Not if it's an RPG and not just an "adventure-investigation game." As compelling as Khavos' definition of RPG being driven by the character's skills instead of the player's is, you must admit that even in so-called "real" RPGs, player skill comes into it. This is why some people can beat DAO Nightmare solo runs and some people (like me) can't.

Modifié par SirOccam, 13 août 2010 - 11:20 .

[maxernst]

Sidney wrote...

Merced256 wrote...


5. 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.

5. Someone dropped FO/FO2, best bets for non-violent play. I agree that combat is fun and I might not want to play the Quakers Age: Origins but the notion that because it doesn't interest me means it couldn't be an RPG just sin't something I'm comfortable with.

I was on an NWN2 persistent world where one player chose to play a character that belonged to a religious sect that refused to brandish weapons.  She seemed to have fun playing the character.  Was she somehow not roleplaying because she didn't kill anybody?

[filetemo]

maxernst wrote...



And are you really horribly offended by games that give you different dialogue options based on the character's intelligence, charm or persuasion skills?  What makes combat so special that it shouldn't have anything to do with the player's aim or reflexes, but everything else should depend on the player's abilities?

because given time and proper training, even a monkey could button mash his way trough the first level of ninja gaiden or streets of rage.
Said monkey would never be able to micromanage a party of four to defeat an archdemon, or to win a battle in starcraft

I'm getting older and slower. As time passes, I play much more slowly paced and relaxed and I do not want rpgs to involve reflexes and speed moves and combos, there are other genres for that. That's why pisses me off so much bioware saying DA needs "a shot of adrenalyne" to appeal the short-attention span hyperactive 14 year-olds

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

 It's still no excuse for taking everything they say and blowing it out of proportion

yes, it is, bioware does an horrible job at marketing their game.

Okay, that's officially ridiculous. You're really saying that blowing things out of proportion is justified?

only seven months till game release and they gave us:

a set of horrible screenshots,claiming "don't worry, it's pre-alpha"
don't worry with only 7 months left??? pre-alpha 7 months left??? why do you even release pre alpha shots if they look so bad?

Because not everyone agrees they look bad? I think they look great, with the exception of the new Darkspawn. If you think they look bad, that's your problem. BioWare aren't evil because you don't like what they made.

then they tell us to wait for august 17 and their first trailer, which we don't even know if it's a teaser or gameplay or cgi

I guess we'll just have to wait until August 17th and see, then, won't we? Why throw a fit about it now?

You just can't unload a crappy set of media like that and give no further explanation for weeks. Bioware's timing is awfully bad when it comes to hype, instead of hype they create rage. Why there's no new screenshots of DA2? they should release a new set looking much better for some damage control.

Again, why are they obligated to "explain" their "crappy" media? The only explanation needed (and implicitly provided) is "this is what the game looks like so far, or at least looked like when we took these shots."

The only rage being created here is in your mind, created by you.

Modifié par SirOccam, 13 août 2010 - 11:25 .

[filetemo]

maxernst wrote...



I was on an NWN2 persistent world where one player chose to play a character that belonged to a religious sect that refused to brandish weapons.  She seemed to have fun playing the character.  Was she somehow not roleplaying because she didn't kill anybody?

on an online server you can wander around doing nothing, that makes no sense in a single player rpg

[Merced256]

Sidney wrote...

2. You do realize that most armor/weapons in DAO add nothing but marginal gains, when my spellpower is 50 and I have a +2 spellpower staff that is a +4% to spellpower device. All those rings +10% nature damage ring a bell? You'd feel better about ME2 if the armor was +15% or something you feel is more meaningful. You are making awfully fine distinction and really there's not even much in the way of distinctions.

As i said previously in this same thread, i understand DA:O's loot was weak, and never did i contend that it wasn't. If anything i was saying that they made the effort to include it, though it was an incredibly poor effort

3. You can't ignore the loot in ME2. Niggle about the armor and helmets but there are very obvious weapon upgrades, armor upgrades and such, there are also all the research products that you either loot or else you purchase with the output of loot.  Like you'd feel a lot better if instead of getting "Heavy Skin Weave" research product that gives you better armor +15% you want an Amulet of Armor +15%.  The ignorable loot is all the vendor trash in most games. Again, we all want to kill a dragon sitting on a huge mound of gold, gems and super coool magicaly doohickeys. What no one should want to do is pull a few arrows out of a dead genlocks quiver and then  steal the battered shield of the hurlock next to him. Inventory as it is implemnted in most games is the enemy because of vendor trash not because of cool stuff.

I really can't recall any mandatory loot in ME2. If it were "mandatory" it would be in the sense that its somehow mission critical. The upgrades for the ship, the medical stuff, its all able to be ignored. Now in the case of the ship upgrades that did have a meanigful effect on the outcome of the game. But only the final mission. Even then as i recall all you had to do was scan some planets for particular resources.

4. Again random loot drops aren't exciting. Are you breathless with anticipation of your next "spirit shard", "Darkspawn Dagger" or "Leather Armor". You know what Genlock Archer is gonna have, and it sucks. No, the only loot drops you really care about are the orange guys because they have the items you want. Instead, you spend as much time clicking on dead bodies for crap as you do spend killing the bodies so you can loot them - time it, in most mob fights you'll drop your foes faster than you can loot them. Looting is not the way to make dungeon slogging better, the answer is better dungeons and more varied combat.

Random loot drops, especially if any of them were any good certainly did add a level of excitement to killing trash mobs in a dungeon crawl. Hell diablo was built upon that and the dungeon siege franchise also used it quite a bit. If DA:O's random drops were better you'd likely have a different stance on that as well. Especially since its very reasonable for more than half your companions to be wearing incredibly bad gear if any on the last mission in DA:O. Decent random loot would've been, at least partially, a way to remedy that.

But i agree random loot alone should never be how you make a dungeon crawl interesting, but look at Oblivion. The game was so big, so many dungeons that they had to reuse dungeon lay outs and such at times because there were so many of them. Its reasonable to assume any game with a large scope would have to do that at some point. But DA:O didn't, again i'm not painting DA:O as the greatest RPG ever. Simply preferable to Dragon Effect.  So had DA:O's dungeon and level designers really made each dungeo unique with its own challenges it'd be good on its own merrits, but i'd contend it'd be even better with the addition of decent random loot possibilities.

Modifié par Merced256, 13 août 2010 - 11:33 .

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...
The only rage being created here is in your mind, created by you.

the screenshots do look horrible, and that's a fact. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't makes my rage unjustified, it makes you delusional.

Maybe you may try to convince yourself thinking "they look decent for pre-alpha" but since there has been no new wave of screenshots to prove the graphics are improved by now, we have to work with those images we have, and those look, to anybody that has eyes and criteria, horrible.

[Haexpane]

SirOccam wrote...

 
Aside from the obvious negative connotations for "pretenders" and positive ones for "game players," this actually isn't a bad distinction to make.
 

I wasn't intentionally trying to be negative towards the "Role Players" or "Pretenders" , just couldn't come up w/ a good name for each group.  IMO "game players" is the more negative phrase I hate the term "gamers"  almost as much as I hate "ballers" and "players" etc..

I honestly don't see either group as completely walled off or superiour to the other.

While I am firmly in the camp that enjoys systems. numbers and gear.  I love a good story and compelling characters.  

Obviously to make a great cake you need flour, water, eggs, sugar etc...   It's more about the balance of these things.  Some people like really rich cakes, others like fluffy cakes, etc..

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
The only rage being created here is in your mind, created by you.

the screenshots do look horrible, and that's a fact. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't makes my rage unjustified, it makes you delusional.

LOL.

So now you've added "if you disagree with me, you are mentally impared" to your resume?

[filetemo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
The only rage being created here is in your mind, created by you.

the screenshots do look horrible, and that's a fact. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't makes my rage unjustified, it makes you delusional.

LOL.

So now you've added "if you disagree with me, you are mentally impared" to your resume?

no, I've added "when you reach the point where you defend the undefendable and negate what my eyes are seeing for the sake of frontally disagreeing I can't take you seriously anymore".

[Haexpane]

SirOccam wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Here a question for the role-playing Taliban, a
scenario call it what you will. RPG Gods build a game based around The
Big Sleep. It captures the gritty world of 1940's film noir where you
guide your character through a world of shady characters with
questionable motives and you can be anyone from hard bitten Philip
Marlowe type to a suave Nick Charles type to a sleezy Jack Vincennes
type. Now, you play as a solitary detective - no party combat. There's
no magic armor in the 1940's. There's no balm, salves, potions or any
crap like that. There's no magic. There are guns - but not many types
and obviously no magical weapons - not even the magic without calling
them that upgraded weapon types from ME - just plain old guns. There's
nothing to buy from merchants but the stuff you'd buy in the 1940's (in
other pretty much nothing you'd need/want for your job). There's nothing
to really min/max on. You will fight but not often because Johnny Law
doesn't like a shoot 'em up.

Can that type of game even be an RPG to you?

That seriously sounds like an awesome game. An awesome RPG, in fact.
 

That made me think of this game


Not exactly like what is described, but an example of a "non traditional RPG system"? Perhaps?

Of course we can all enjoy games of varying design, and I play a wide variety of games.   

Indigo Prophecy and Dreamfall are 2 games that come to mind, games about story, character, "role playing" that lack RPG "mechanics" so to speak.

I enjoy variety, but this board is about Dragon Age, and DAO was the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2" so I have a very specific idea of what I was expecting, and DAO delivered on that for the most part.

And what we have w/ DA2 is very little information, and what information is out there *seems* like a drastic shift.

Thus the hubub:D

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
The only rage being created here is in your mind, created by you.

the screenshots do look horrible, and that's a fact. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't makes my rage unjustified, it makes you delusional.

LOL.

So now you've added "if you disagree with me, you are mentally impared" to your resume?

no, I've added "when you reach the point where you defend the undefendable and negate what my eyes are seeing for the sake of frontally disagreeing I can't take you seriously anymore".

Fil, it's rather hard to take you seriously anymore. Either you are a huge troll/dual account, or you actually are so delusional to think that your opinion on everything is fact.

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
The only rage being created here is in your mind, created by you.

the screenshots do look horrible, and that's a fact. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't makes my rage unjustified, it makes you delusional.

Maybe you may try to convince yourself thinking "they look decent for pre-alpha" but since there has been no new wave of screenshots to prove the graphics are improved by now, we have to work with those images we have, and those look, to anybody that has eyes and criteria, horrible.

Alrighty then. It finally sunk in. You are totally not worth talking to.


That is a damn good-looking screenshot. From the detail on Hawke's face, to the shadows being cast by the hair onto his face (I forget the industry term for that), to the camera angle. If I must be delusional to think so, then I guess I'm delusional.

You, meanwhile, are clearly a bastion of reason and logic, Mr. "I have an excuse for blowing things out of proportion."

Modifié par SirOccam, 13 août 2010 - 11:37 .

[Xena_Shepard]

An RPG is any game where you play a significant role, some game like a racing game isn't an RPG because you're just "a racer". So technically the majority of games in existence can be classified as an RPG, but why aren't they? Because the perception by EVERYONE is that an RPG game is supposed to have the core elements of the tabletop game that invented the RPG genre: Dungeons and Dragons.



You can't find a traditional RPG that isn't just like D&D, after I started playing D&D, KOTOR made so much more sense to me. I do think BioWare has been deceptive with their games lately, you can't label a game an RPG unless it has those core traits, you may say it fits the word definition of RPG, which it does, but it doesn't fit the genre definition of RPG.



Now I loved ME2, despite the fact that I was on the bandwagon hating some of the new changes at first, though I still wish they had kept some elements of ME1 like the weapon customization system, that would have made ME2 beyond perfect.



But I do also believe that despite the great things BioWare has done in the past, they are trying to phase out the hardcore elements of their 'RPG' games, which isn't cool. They got away with it in ME2 because as many have said, it's just different in that kind of game, also ME1 itself wasn't even that much of a hardcore RPG. However if they do something like they did with ME2 with DA2, it'll be unforgivable and I won't buy DA2, I just hope their awesomeness lasts til ME3.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

nice faces, yes, you'll see them closely in dialogue options. The 95% of the rest of the game you'll see this



care to explain the graphical awesomeness in THIS???

[Haexpane]

SirOccam wrote...
 

That is a damn good-looking screenshot.

From the detail on Hawke's face, to the shadows being cast by the hair onto his face (I forget the industry term for that), to the camera angle. If I must be delusional to think so, then I guess I'm delusional.

That screenshot looks good.  But IMO this is a representation of the Dragon Effect.  ME1 to ME2 what happened?  ZOOMED camera, close up head shots.

So while the art and the tech are represented strongly, (although why is the girl cross eyed?)  it only fuels the "Dragon Effect" fire more by aligning w/ the ME2 shift to Zoomed In Head Shots, lots of talking design.

IMO I could deal with less Beard Detail and more armor variety, or maybe less Hair detail and better helmets.

Everything is a trade off.  ME2 you traded off being able to customize your party for more detailed Miranda Ass.  Most people liked that trade off.

Miranda's ass is extremely nice, but I already have ME2.  I woiuld rather DA2 be more "BG2 ish and less ME2ish" is what we are getting at.

[The Edge]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

nice faces, yes, you'll see them closely in dialogue options. The 95% of the rest of the game you'll see this



care to explain the graphical awesomeness in THIS???

Care to explain why you think this will be the quality in the FINAL VERSION???

[Merced256]

Haexpane wrote...
Everything is a trade off.  ME2 you traded off being able to customize your party for more detailed Miranda Ass.  Most people liked that trade off.

[Xena_Shepard]

Merced256 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...
Everything is a trade off.  ME2 you traded off being able to customize your party for more detailed Miranda Ass.  Most people liked that trade off.

Did you mean Miranda's ass or Miranda being an ass? 'Cause both trade offs sucked.

Modifié par Xena_Shepard, 13 août 2010 - 11:51 .

[Merced256]

Clearly miranda's ass. It was nice, but ultimately it was no side boob.

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

nice faces, yes, you'll see them closely in dialogue options. The 95% of the rest of the game you'll see this



care to explain the graphical awesomeness in THIS???

The Ogre looks cool, I like the look of that dead tree or whatever it is and the thorny plants around it, and I like the robes/armor that Bethany and Hawke are wearing. Especially Hawke...I think it's awesome that his stuff looks a little more raggedy and unique than armor in DAO did. I think it reflects well the idea of him being a refugee, and again, it just looks cool. For some reason the boots especially look cool. The ground texture could use a lot of work, though.

It's been established, though, that these are early screenshots. I'm not saying that if this were the final product I'd be thrilled with it, but for what they are, I appreciate them. I'd rather have early screenshots than none at all.