1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

condiments1 wrote...
because they are trying to rope in their old fans while appealing to a wider shooter audience.

But that's what any company does to stay afloat in any market.

[Rubbish Hero]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

condiments1 wrote...
because they are trying to rope in their old fans while appealing to a wider shooter audience.

But that's what any company does to stay afloat in any market.

Blizzard done it with Starcraft II wirthout changing the entire nature of the game.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 12 août 2010 - 01:57 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Rubbish, I thought we've been over the whole Blizzard issue.

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Thank you for deleting any doubt I had that you're anything more than a sh*t-starter.

that's not very convincing coming from Mr. "For every copy of Dragon Age 2 that you don't buy, I'm going to buy seven."

... that's a... joke? I mean, honestly now. I can't believe how many people have actually taken offense to it, or think that I've meant it. 

I'm not here to spill hate

But don't you get that you are? Sure, you don't need to be all "OMG I LUV DA2", but don't you see how your comments are trollish and nowhere near constructive? BioWare's never going to listen to you like that.

[GardenSnake]

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

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

Agreed. Han Solo for example, at this point in time, is as much a die hard star wars fan's as he is Lucas'. He's transcended just being a character in a movie. He's an icon and so much more. If Lucas were to remake the original trilogy and cast hhmmm.... Shia Labeouf for example (I have nothing against the actor, I actually love his work, Transformers be damned) and rewrote Han to be a gay transexual, you could bet there would be hell to pay. Sure, it IS Lucas' character, but there comes a certain point when something becomes so grand and so loved that the owner loses some of their ownership subconsciously to the fans that made that thing into the epic that it is now. Sure Origins isn't quite on par with Star Wars in terms of popularity and fanbase, but RPG gamers are a passionate bunch.

[Seth Burns]

I don't see why you fanboys are continuing to argue over something you can't change. Just deal with the changes FFS. I mean, you don't see me going around say "I wish we lived in the 60s. All these changes to the world, I certainly disapprove and say we should live back in those ages!"



Oh, and I never lived in the 60s or anything, I was just using that as an example. Anywho....

[Jonathan Seagull]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

Smallville forums are stormy, shark-infested waters to swim.  And I say that as a Smallville fan.

Back to the topic, yes, I agree that some people have too narrow a view of what an RPG must be.  There's a difference between actual criteria and what someone prefers.  For example, I prefer my RPGs to be party-based and take place in a sword-and-sorcery setting.  Ones that don't don't appeal to me as much, and I generally don't buy them, but that doesn't mean it isn't an RPG.

From what we know, DA2 will still let you choose how to play your character, provide you with choices throughout the storyline, etc.  Altering the combat system does not make it NOT an RPG.  Altering the dialogue interface does not make it NOT an RPG.  Having to play as a human does not make it NOT an RPG.  And so on.

[TSamee]

Mass Effect 2 is, frankly, the perfect example of over-simplifying core mechanics. I'm not talking about the shooting. I loved that. I just feel that there's way too much emphasis on it. It's still very much a "role-playing game", but it doesn't feel like the first Mass Effect that drew us into the series



Missions, every single one, inevitable boil down to "the **** just hit the fan, go shoot people", occasionally punctuated by mini-games (like the logic puzzle with Liara on Illium). There's nothing with the depth of say, the Landsmeet in terms of its dialogue options, there's no mission that relies on dialogue, or any other skill besides shooting people.

Inventory management was scrapped, not to "streamline" a problem which people complained about, but to appeal to a completely different type of gamer.

And those are just two examples. All I'm saying is that I have no problem with streamlining... but when you do it to the point when you alienate your previous core audience you're going too far.

[Bryy_Miller]

GardenSnake wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

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

Agreed. Han Solo for example, at this point in time, is as much a die hard star wars fan's as he is Lucas'. He's transcended just being a character in a movie. He's an icon and so much more. If Lucas were to remake the original trilogy and cast hhmmm.... Shia Labeouf for example (I have nothing against the actor, I actually love his work, Transformers be damned) and rewrote Han to be a gay transexual, you could bet there would be hell to pay. Sure, it IS Lucas' character, but there comes a certain point when something becomes so grand and so loved that the owner loses some of their ownership subconsciously to the fans that made that thing into the epic that it is now. Sure Origins isn't quite on par with Star Wars in terms of popularity and fanbase, but RPG gamers are a passionate bunch.

But legally, Han Solo is not yours, and should not be treated as if he is yours.

[Mecha Tengu]

jackkel dragon wrote...

Right, I'm sure that's exactly what they want...

Edit: Wait... do you have any recent BioWare games?

maybe not, but doing what the OP said will certainly maximize profits

[Novadove]

filetemo,

just a word of advice. there are people here who camps in this forum giving unconstructive sacarsim answers.



personally i totally agree with you and as of now, DA2 looks like disney rpg/adventure.



the only thumbs up is the good story writing from bioware, which i am assured from past games.

[Stanley Woo]

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

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



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



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



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



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



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

[back pain]

Bioware is a business and like all businesses bioware wants money, as much of it  they can get. And perhaps the death of all misquotes everywhere.

Edit: grammer 

Modifié par back pain, 12 août 2010 - 02:09 .

[condiments1]

SirOccam wrote...

condiments1 wrote...



Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

Halo is a third-person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story. I really liked Halo's storyline. It was a fun game, though I haven't played it in years.



Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. Your actions affect the outcome of the game. You make your own version of Shepard. You have the freedom to build relationships with other characters (although I will admit it wasn't done very well compared to DAO). You decide where Shepard's strengths are.



The difference to me is that a shooter just moves you from combat level to combat level with a couple cutscenes in between. Others may disagree with me, but I think what makes an RPG an RPG is that you have a level of freedom that games like Halo lack. It has nothing to do with inventory, or statistics, or min/maxing, or math.

Actually Halo is first person shooter, which has decent cutscenes/meh storyline(IMO) like any FPS I've played.



People go rabid over the definition of "RPG", because unlike the others you can't merely take at face value. The term "Role-playing" hails from its roots Dungeon and Dragons, at the CORE of RPGs is "character skill over player skill". Hence, why most RPGs have some statistics/class, because they are numerical/categorical representations of your character and how to apply it.



Story and interactivity is nice and all, but many great RPGs like Icewind Dale barely had a story. Also, how WOULD we measure the worth an RPG by your definition? How interactive the story is? How many dialogue options? In that case, ME2 STILL fails to later 90s early 2000s RPGs in how the game reacts to your decisions. All the ME series did was improve its presentation...

[Mecha Tengu]

you left out homosexual batman

[Rubbish Hero]

Stanley Woo wrote...

 If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine addict

Then he would probably quite interesting than just Master Chief without a helmet.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 12 août 2010 - 02:10 .

[SirOccam]

GardenSnake wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

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

Agreed. Han Solo for example, at this point in time, is as much a die hard star wars fan's as he is Lucas'. He's transcended just being a character in a movie. He's an icon and so much more. If Lucas were to remake the original trilogy and cast hhmmm.... Shia Labeouf for example (I have nothing against the actor, I actually love his work, Transformers be damned) and rewrote Han to be a gay transexual, you could bet there would be hell to pay. Sure, it IS Lucas' character, but there comes a certain point when something becomes so grand and so loved that the owner loses some of their ownership subconsciously to the fans that made that thing into the epic that it is now. Sure Origins isn't quite on par with Star Wars in terms of popularity and fanbase, but RPG gamers are a passionate bunch.

I think you guys are mistaking ownership for an author/creator wanting/needing to create consistent characters.

No matter how well-loved or classic a character, he or she never belongs to anyone besides the creator (legal shenanigans notwithstanding). If George Lucas decided to make Han a gay transsexual, he has every right to do so. Yes, fans would hate it, and yes, there'd be "hell to pay" in the form of nerd rage, but that doesn't change that it's still his prerogative.

What would happen is a subset of Star Wars fans would maybe split off and decide on a canon they choose to believe in (including a Han that is more to their liking), and together sort of decide that's the way it is, but none of that changes what actually happened.

Star Wars is actually a good example, because I used to be a massive SW nerd as a kid. It was already fading, but when the prequels came out, it was squashed for good. That said, I still have a sort of vague interest in what happens in the EU (since I used to read the EU novels), especially concerning two of my favorite characters, Chewbacca and Mara Jade. Well, R.A. Salvatore killed Chewie. I was pissed. But it was all legal...Lucas gave him the freedom to do so (and some say he even instructed him to do so)...and he did so. It is canon, whether I like it or not. And I just recently found out that Jacen Solo (Han and Leia's eldest son) is now evil, Darth something, and Mara Jade is likewise dead. In a way this still annoys me, despite the fact that I have told myself repeatedly that I have washed my hands of Star Wars. And yet, despite all my rage I am still just a nerd in a cage. They can do (and have done) what they want.

[Seth Burns]

TSamee wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is, frankly, the perfect example of over-simplifying core mechanics. I'm not talking about the shooting. I loved that. I just feel that there's way too much emphasis on it. It's still very much a "role-playing game", but it doesn't feel like the first Mass Effect that drew us into the series

Missions, every single one, inevitable boil down to "the **** just hit the fan, go shoot people", occasionally punctuated by mini-games (like the logic puzzle with Liara on Illium). There's nothing with the depth of say, the Landsmeet in terms of its dialogue options, there's no mission that relies on dialogue, or any other skill besides shooting people.
Inventory management was scrapped, not to "streamline" a problem which people complained about, but to appeal to a completely different type of gamer.
And those are just two examples. All I'm saying is that I have no problem with streamlining... but when you do it to the point when you alienate your previous core audience you're going too far.

Do you remember ME1? I'm pretty sure quests are just about identical in comparison to ME2. Most of the ME1 quests walk you into the same looking ship, mine, or other interior space, and kill anything that moves and usually find out what they were doing or get a quick grab of something. ME2 actually broadened this experience, each place you explore is actually new and different, and the story and reasoning is much more sumptuous.

Sure there were more dialogue options in ME1 sidequests, but go take a walk through Illium or the Citadel, and you'll get a TON of dialogue sidequests. I'm just simply stating, if you were to compare sidequests, ME2 has a richer experience than ME1's.

[Ensgnblack]

You make some heavyhanded assertions without citing exactly how you feel the game is becoming this way.

[Bryy_Miller]

Stanley, I think you need to put a spoiler tag on that post.

[Mecha Tengu]

Seth Burns wrote...

Sure there were more dialogue options in ME1 sidequests, but go take a walk through Illium or the Citadel, and you'll get a TON of dialogue sidequests. I'm just simply stating, if you were to compare sidequests, ME2 has a richer experience than ME1's.

well ME2 certainly looked PRETTIER...

but the entire game was recruit so and so, deal with their issues, then go to final mission. The sidequests were not recycled maps, but were mostly combat and involved no dialogue or descision making.

ME1 citadel was much better

[MACGRUBER7691]

 I'm actually happy with the way bioware is taking things at least in terms of gameplay. I'd love to see a game with mechanics and gameplay of a metal gear solid or another tps without the generic leveling system and stat/percentage based gameplay. If you shoot a guy in the head it should him in the head and not be affected by your accuracy rating in alpha protocol. The great thing about this is you would have the great dialouge based conversation system and epic choices without the old rpg gameplay and cliches. To me an RPG isn't a stat based/exp.based/percentage based game but a game where you can make choices and decide what you do and say.Deus ex was a great example of this at least as a start. I will point out though that I don't really like there new mass effect approved dialouge system. 

[SirOccam]

condiments1 wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

condiments1 wrote...

Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

Halo is a third-person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story. I really liked Halo's storyline. It was a fun game, though I haven't played it in years.

Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. Your actions affect the outcome of the game. You make your own version of Shepard. You have the freedom to build relationships with other characters (although I will admit it wasn't done very well compared to DAO). You decide where Shepard's strengths are.

The difference to me is that a shooter just moves you from combat level to combat level with a couple cutscenes in between. Others may disagree with me, but I think what makes an RPG an RPG is that you have a level of freedom that games like Halo lack. It has nothing to do with inventory, or statistics, or min/maxing, or math.

Actually Halo is first person shooter, which has decent cutscenes/meh storyline(IMO) like any FPS I've played.

Err, that's right, first-person, though my point still stands, I think. Whether the cutscenes/story were good or not is obviously subjective. I liked them.

People go rabid over the definition of "RPG", because unlike the others
you can't merely take at face value. The term "Role-playing" hails from
its roots Dungeon and Dragons, at the CORE of RPGs is "character skill
over player skill". Hence, why most RPGs have some statistics/class,
because they are numerical/categorical representations of your character
and how to apply it.

Story and interactivity is nice and all,
but many great RPGs like Icewind Dale barely had a story. Also, how
WOULD we measure the worth an RPG by your definition? How interactive
the story is? How many dialogue options? In that case, ME2 STILL fails
to later 90s early 2000s RPGs in how the game reacts to your decisions.
All the ME series did was improve its presentation...

Okay, but whether it's "weaker" in that respect or not, that doesn't mean it's not an RPG anymore. I agree it didn't have as much depth or storytelling freedom as something like DAO, but that's okay, isn't it? I always felt like it was more like a movie, while DAO is more like a novel. Both are perfectly valid and entertaining ways to tell a story.

[Archdemon Cthulhu]

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

because one newbie writer has no rights to change decades of tradition.

if they made mass effect 4 and a new contracted writer made shepard a transexual cocaine addict, you'fd have all the right to criticise him. After a few years, a character is equally property of the fans and the creators.

No, just no.  It is embarrassing to see a human being say something like this.  

one "newbie" writer has no right to change tradition?  Are you freakin insane?

Because William Shakespeare had no right to invent the history genre of plays, nor to combine elements of tragedy into his comedies and vice versa.  Because Raymond Carver had no right to introduce minimalism as a form of writing.  Because Will Eisner had no right to write comics as mature, novelistic stories rather pulp/superhero/comedy stories.  

Yeah, those damn writers who go against tradition.  Pfsh.

As for for some pop culture examples:  Batman started as a dark loner, became a campy detective with a kid sidekick, turned into good hearted but emotionally stunted knight figure who also played father/mentor to his sidekicks, then briefly turned into a sociopath in the eighties, and is now a bitter but heroic man.  And that's just his comic book incarnations.  Same goes for his main villain, the Joker, who's gone from grim clown to campy clown gimmick to true psychopath over the years.  Superman went from the paladin to th naive corporate tool and then to absolute protector of the earth.  I mean, seriously, writers change even basic characters ALL THE TIME, and guess what, they ALL have their fans and none consider any of these version of the character to not be real...because that would be stupid.  

Your argument is tired and nonsensical.  

EDIT:  I went back and noticed Stanley Woo beat me to the Batman comparison.  Still, my point stands.

Modifié par Archdemon Cthulhu, 12 août 2010 - 02:21 .

[Stanley Woo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Stanley, I think you need to put a spoiler tag on that post.

I'm pretty sure everything I mentioned is past the "statue of limitations" on spoilers by now.

[Ensgnblack]

I just caught up to reading the whole thread, and Stanely, I agree with everything you said there. COnsumers are not the ones creating the game. Let the designers design and purchase it if you endorse their product.