1133 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

The Edge wrote...
Care to explain why you think this will be the quality in the FINAL VERSION???

Have they worried about releasing non prealpha screenshots in a month to placate the outrage in the forums? no.
They show me their screenshots, and they look like garbage, then they don't bother showing anything else to change opinions.So I have to believe they are fine with the quality of the content they have released to the media.

[Xena_Shepard]

Merced256 wrote...

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

I quoted you so that I could quote your quote, I wasn't actually directly talking to you, I knew which you liked, both sucked.

Modifié par Xena_Shepard, 13 août 2010 - 11:55 .

[The Edge]

Haexpane wrote...

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.

Dat Ass

But seriously, I don't see why a cinematic camera is something to complain about. And, yes, there are trade-offs, but it's difficult to please everybody...

[The Edge]

filetemo wrote...

The Edge wrote...
Care to explain why you think this will be the quality in the FINAL VERSION???

Have they worried about releasing non prealpha screenshots in a month to placate the outrage in the forums? no.
They show me their screenshots, and they look like garbage, then they don't bother showing anything else to change opinions.So I have to believe they are fine with the quality of the content they have released to the media.

... although we are potential customers, Bioware doesn't have to bow down to us to placate our discontent. They'll release what the want to when they want, and who knows. Maybe their withholding more pics to keep us on our toes and anxious for more.

[SirOccam]

Haexpane wrote...

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.

DAO had plenty of close-ups. I don't think that point holds any water whatsoever. What ME did have that DAO didn't was dynamic action going on during dialogue, and that's something I dearly hope DA2 can pick up. Obviously we can't tell that from screenshots though.

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.

No, not everything is a trade off, and "party customization vs. Miranda Ass" is a perfect example. Do you honestly think they had a meeting where they decided to lessen party customization in favor of more detail for Miranda's ass?

Party customization is a design issue, ass detail is a graphics issue. Never the twain shall meet. And furthermore on that theme, the decision to feature Miranda's ass so prominently is a cinematography issue. They could have made a million different cinematographical decisions without having one iota of influence on the game's design.

Likewise, in DA2, having more interesting or compelling camera angles has nothing to do with the story or the mechanics of the game. You can't expect me to believe that boring camera angles somehow enhance the game's enjoyment.

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...

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. 

But why is this neccesary? You say it's to show a character progressing. But fundamentally, why should a character progress?

If we have a level 10 exclusive PnP session in D&D, where there isn't enough XP to level up once, then have we failed to play an RPG?

Shepard is different at level 30 with all abilities than level 1 with none. The difference is NOT dramatic. But why should the difference be dramatic for the game to be an RPG? Why is an expontential versus logaritmic power scale neccesary for an RPG? 

[Xena_Shepard]

In Exile wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

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. 

But why is this neccesary? You say it's to show a character progressing. But fundamentally, why should a character progress?

If we have a level 10 exclusive PnP session in D&D, where there isn't enough XP to level up once, then have we failed to play an RPG?

Shepard is different at level 30 with all abilities than level 1 with none. The difference is NOT dramatic. But why should the difference be dramatic for the game to be an RPG? Why is an expontential versus logaritmic power scale neccesary for an RPG? 

You fail to take into account that D&D sessions get very little done because you're lucky if you can manage through one encounter in a single session, deppending of course. You also fail to take into account that there is a vast difference in D&D when you level up even several levels, therefore giving you an exponential power gain.

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...



But why is this neccesary? You say it's to show a character progressing. But fundamentally, why should a character progress?


Shepard is different at level 30 with all abilities than level 1 with none. The difference is NOT dramatic. But why should the difference be dramatic for the game to be an RPG?

pnp rpgs were fundamentally at their beginnings, creating a character and growing up in power defeating more powerful enemies every time, that's why the leveling up and stat system is built like that, roleplaying deeply and developing a personality came later.

in an rpg the only way to beat big monsters is leveling up. You get a number that says that while you did 250 points of damage at level 19, you do 300 points at level 20, allowing you to beat the dragon.

In action rpgs you can be of level 1, but if you were fast and skilled enough to not get hit, you could defeat the final boss.Like you can beat ME2 with the default pistol and zero points on skills, rendering leveling up useless.

[Merced256]

In Exile wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

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. 

But why is this neccesary? You say it's to show a character progressing. But fundamentally, why should a character progress?

If we have a level 10 exclusive PnP session in D&D, where there isn't enough XP to level up once, then have we failed to play an RPG?

Shepard is different at level 30 with all abilities than level 1 with none. The difference is NOT dramatic. But why should the difference be dramatic for the game to be an RPG? Why is an expontential versus logaritmic power scale neccesary for an RPG? 

Technically speaking... it doesn't have to be. Technically speaking virtually every fundamental aspect of most every successful RPG doesn't have to be incorporated. This is news.

The point is, has always been, that a decently large demographic identify particular aspects with particularl genres. To not include those aspects, or worse yet, butcher them as ME2 did is something some view as worth giving voice against. Me being one among them.

Are you going to argue that meaningful character progression is something most successful RPGs choose to ignore? Who cares if during the course of a PnP session thats its impossible for the party to level. They are there specifically to roleplay and everything else be damned. Contrary to your belief this isn't always the case with computer based RPGs.<_<

[In Exile]

Xena_Shepard wrote...

You fail to take into account that D&D sessions get very little done because you're lucky if you can manage through one encounter in a single session, deppending of course. You also fail to take into account that there is a vast difference in D&D when you level up even several levels, therefore giving you an exponential power gain.

I don't play PnP, so I have no idea how it mechanically works. I am simply talking about a DM constructing a campaign that lacks enough encounters to take a player at level 10 with 0 experience to level 11.

If leveling up is neccesary, we could not say that session was an RPG. Hell, we could say the same if someone designed an NWN module that did that. 

The entire issue is that power progression and expotential power progression are not equivalent concepts. Even if an RPG needs some kind of power progression to be an RPG (and I agree it does), that does not mean it has to be exponential

In fact, I'm a huge proponent of logarithmic leveling where you are not dramatically different in damage, HP etc. by the endgame but only have a larger # of different abilities. So like ME2, but with far more abilities than the 4 or so per class.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
pnp rpgs were fundamentally at their beginnings, creating a character and growing up in power defeating more powerful enemies every time, that's why the leveling up and stat system is built like that, roleplaying deeply and developing a personality came later.

in an rpg the only way to beat big monsters is leveling up. You get a number that says that while you did 250 points of damage at level 19, you do 300 points at level 20, allowing you to beat the dragon.

In action rpgs you can be of level 1, but if you were fast and skilled enough to not get hit, you could defeat the final boss.Like you can beat ME2 with the default pistol and zero points on skills, rendering leveling up useless.

You don't get my point.

If I have a level 1 character beat a level 1 enemy, and I stop playing then, or the game ends, and everything depends only on the statistics and not my skill, have I failed to play an RPG?

Yes or no? 

Because if your claim that we need to have level grinding to be an RPG, a NWN module that does that is not an RPG. 

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...
I don't play PnP, so I have no idea how it mechanically works. 

that's why you can't feel my pain and why I rage so hard over the last stand for wrpgs that is the DA franchise

[Merced256]

So we can look forward to 60 hours of gameplay where we are fundamentally the same as we were during the first hour. Meaning the only thing that changes in the next 60 hours is the plot and setting. Not my cup of tea, probably not a lot of other peoples cup of tea, but whatever.

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...

Technically speaking... it doesn't have to be. Technically speaking virtually every fundamental aspect of most every successful RPG doesn't have to be incorporated. This is news.

The point is, has always been, that a decently large demographic identify particular aspects with particularl genres. To not include those aspects, or worse yet, butcher them as ME2 did is something some view as worth giving voice against. Me being one among them.

Are you going to argue that meaningful character progression is something most successful RPGs choose to ignore? Who cares if during the course of a PnP session thats its impossible for the party to level. They are there specifically to roleplay and everything else be damned. Contrary to your belief this isn't always the case with computer based RPGs.<_<

Avoid the starwmen, please.

I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

But let's go right back to the basic question, which you avoided by building your strawman:

Why is dramatic power progression neccesary versus subtle progression. Why should my skills lead to a jump from 30 damage to 9999 damage, instead of from 30 damage to 33 damage?

Why are arbitrarily huge number increases neccesary for an RPG?

[Jonathan Seagull]

The Edge wrote...

... although we are potential customers, Bioware doesn't have to bow down to us to placate our discontent. They'll release what the want to when they want, and who knows. Maybe their withholding more pics to keep us on our toes and anxious for more.

Yes, exactly.  It's perfectly understandable for people to want as much information as possible.  But from a marketing standpoint, if they release everything, including their best stuff (whether information or screenshots) now, all that does is give people plenty of time between now and March to think about other things.

As with most products (especially entertainment), it's fairly common (and smart, in my opinion) to start a slow trickle of information to get people talking, and then gradually release more and more -- and more enticing -- information.  This helps to ensure that the interest of the audience in general is kept stoked heading towards the release date.  Of course some fans will decide they don't like certain things they find out; that always happens.  But the process results in people having more new things to talk about over time, rather than less.

I will say, to be fair (not that I don't think I'm already being fair ), that I think it would be a good idea to release a couple of new, very nice-looking and detailed screenshots relatively soon.  But for all we know, that's exactly what they're planning.

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...

So we can look forward to 60 hours of gameplay where we are fundamentally the same as we were during the first hour. Meaning the only thing that changes in the next 60 hours is the plot and setting. Not my cup of tea, probably not a lot of other peoples cup of tea, but whatever.

Right, that's totally fine. It's your right to think it would be a terrible game. What I am asking you, though, is why that game is not an RPG. That was your initial claim, and I'd like to see the rationale for it.

[Merced256]

In Exile wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Technically speaking... it doesn't have to be. Technically speaking virtually every fundamental aspect of most every successful RPG doesn't have to be incorporated. This is news.

The point is, has always been, that a decently large demographic identify particular aspects with particularl genres. To not include those aspects, or worse yet, butcher them as ME2 did is something some view as worth giving voice against. Me being one among them.

Are you going to argue that meaningful character progression is something most successful RPGs choose to ignore? Who cares if during the course of a PnP session thats its impossible for the party to level. They are there specifically to roleplay and everything else be damned. Contrary to your belief this isn't always the case with computer based RPGs.<_<

Avoid the starwmen, please.

I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

But let's go right back to the basic question, which you avoided by building your strawman:

Why is dramatic power progression neccesary versus subtle progression. Why should my skills lead to a jump from 30 damage to 9999 damage, instead of from 30 damage to 33 damage?

Why are arbitrarily huge number increases neccesary for an RPG?

Who said the only progression is in the scaling of some arbitrary number? Does that not imply the addition of new skills and abilities that could possibly change your tactics during the course of gameplay? 

Modifié par Merced256, 14 août 2010 - 12:27 .

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...


I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

WHAT???????
it's not an acceptable definition, it's the only definition possible. Anything out of the mechanics of a pnp rpg is not an rpg

[Merced256]

In Exile wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

So we can look forward to 60 hours of gameplay where we are fundamentally the same as we were during the first hour. Meaning the only thing that changes in the next 60 hours is the plot and setting. Not my cup of tea, probably not a lot of other peoples cup of tea, but whatever.

Right, that's totally fine. It's your right to think it would be a terrible game. What I am asking you, though, is why that game is not an RPG. That was your initial claim, and I'd like to see the rationale for it.

I'm pretty sure i addressed that by saying if you wanted to be technical it would still be a RPG. Just not the one i, and many many others would want. Thats not to say its not the one you, or whoever else wants.

[Xena_Shepard]

In Exile wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...

You fail to take into account that D&D sessions get very little done because you're lucky if you can manage through one encounter in a single session, deppending of course. You also fail to take into account that there is a vast difference in D&D when you level up even several levels, therefore giving you an exponential power gain.

I don't play PnP, so I have no idea how it mechanically works. I am simply talking about a DM constructing a campaign that lacks enough encounters to take a player at level 10 with 0 experience to level 11.

If leveling up is neccesary, we could not say that session was an RPG. Hell, we could say the same if someone designed an NWN module that did that. 

The entire issue is that power progression and expotential power progression are not equivalent concepts. Even if an RPG needs some kind of power progression to be an RPG (and I agree it does), that does not mean it has to be exponential

In fact, I'm a huge proponent of logarithmic leveling where you are not dramatically different in damage, HP etc. by the endgame but only have a larger # of different abilities. So like ME2, but with far more abilities than the 4 or so per class.

I play D&D and DM D&D and I can tell you that a "session" is just a meeting to play the "adventure" that may or may not have been made up by the DM, and I can also tell you that there is no "adventure" where you do not gain at LEAST 1 level, and that's REALLY short adventures, most adventures get you 2-3 levels in, and that's just an "adventure" a "campaign" is a bunch of "adventures".

And also you kind of shot yourself in the foot because there's no D&D player out there who wouldn't get pissed off if they played through an adventure and didn't level up.

And hell, by your logic, why have levels at all? If you don't "gain" any "power" then leveling up is pointless.

[Xena_Shepard]

filetemo wrote...

In Exile wrote...


I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

WHAT???????
it's not an acceptable definition, it's the only definition possible. Anything out of the mechanics of a pnp rpg is not an rpg

Look up RPG in the dictionary and you get the D&D logo, D&D isn't just the definition of an RPG it's what CREATED the RPG, if it doesn't follow the D&D model (even DAO followed the D&D model it just had its own system instead of the D20 system, D20 system and D&D are two different things) then it can't be classified in the RPG game genre.

Modifié par Xena_Shepard, 14 août 2010 - 12:42 .

[Xena_Shepard]

Ultimately what BioWare did was sell out to the trigger happy FPS genre player, who are in direct competition with we RPG players who actually enjoy something beyond "pew pew you're dead," like Modern Warfare or Halo.



And they could be doing the same thing with DA2, though I haven't kept up with it it seems like they're selling it out to the trigger happy crowd. Then again I'm not very surprised with how the world is now adays anyways, break down of intelligence and all.

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

In Exile wrote...


I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

WHAT???????
it's not an acceptable definition, it's the only definition possible. Anything out of the mechanics of a pnp rpg is not an rpg

I think we've finally arrived at the core problem here.

[Xena_Shepard]

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

In Exile wrote...


I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

WHAT???????
it's not an acceptable definition, it's the only definition possible. Anything out of the mechanics of a pnp rpg is not an rpg

I think we've finally arrived at the core problem here.

filetemo is correct you know, as I explained in a way earlier post, you can stick "RPG" by the WORD definition onto just about ANY game in existence, but if the game doesn't follow the D&D standard, it doesn't fit into the ACTUAL use of the genre word "RPG" no matter what anybody else says, if it doesn't fit into the traditional RPG mold it isn't an RPG.

It's just like how people think America is a "demoracy" when infact we are a "democratic republic" just because you label something someway doesn't make it so, which means no matter how much you wanna scream that a game is an RPG if it just lets you take the reigns of someone important, it's not an RPG if it doesn't fit into the D&D standard of game mechanics.

Modifié par Xena_Shepard, 14 août 2010 - 12:58 .

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

In Exile wrote...


I don't play PnP. I happen to think it's stupid. But it was presented in this thread as an acceptable definition of an RPG by many, so I took it that way.

WHAT???????
it's not an acceptable definition, it's the only definition possible. Anything out of the mechanics of a pnp rpg is not an rpg

I think we've finally arrived at the core problem here.

I'm a DM in pnp D&D and it hurts my soul to hear pnp rpg "may" be an "acceptable" definition of what an rpg is.