1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Haexpane]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Haexpane wrote...


/pops in ME2 disc
/confirms - nope it doesn't

Oh, you must mean for non Shepard characters

That, and no XP for killing.  XP only at "rank up".   Also you really can't "customize" your Shep's stuff like ME1, the weapon progression is pretty linear, and the DLC content instantly makes all other armor choices worthless aside from looks.

[Heimdall]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

There is also a HUGE market consisting of people that just like to kill stuff, and the developers will strip away the character-building and strategy aspects of the Dragon Age franchise in order to appeal to these people and get more people to purchase the game.

You are right.  What bothers me more, is that people seem to presume DA will become an adventure game based on the scant info we have when we know for a fact that much of the combat isn't even changing much and leveling up works the same

There is no such thing as being "elitist."

:huh:yes there is, and someone thinking they're better than someone else because of the type of video game they play is certainly elitist

Simplification just doesn't appeal to certain people and there already is plenty of other games where the character is made for you and you just run around mashing A and X. Some people just prefer that Dragon Age be left out of that group of games and stick to it's RPG format.

Perhaps I'm just strange but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that Dragon age is moving into that group.  In no way dos DA2 seem to at all resemble the above definition anymore than DA:O

[Heimdall]

Haexpane wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Haexpane wrote...


/pops in ME2 disc
/confirms - nope it doesn't

Oh, you must mean for non Shepard characters

That, and no XP for killing.  XP only at "rank up".   Also you really can't "customize" your Shep's stuff like ME1, the weapon progression is pretty linear, and the DLC content instantly makes all other armor choices worthless aside from looks.

Yes, which is why I never used DLC armor.  Lack of inventory and custimization for Shepard's stuff didn't really bother me.  Though not being able to mess with squadmate armor did wrankle me.  Granted, I think ME1 had downright shoddy combat so hopefully there will be a seemless blend of both game's greater elements in ME3

[AlanC9]

I don't think Kalfear does links anymore; he declared a moratorium on it for reasons that are obscure. Apparently we're supposed to do the work ourselves, or some such.

[Haexpane]

Me2 combat is certainly more refined to ME1 combat, but I found ME1 more challenging and "exciting" if you will. I found ME2 combat a bit grindy and predictable. Lower shields, then freeze.



I use the abilities in ME2 only for show.

[Nohvarr]

Whenever I search for ME 2 sales figures I find it clearly outselling ME 1 within a week or two. So I don't know where Kalfear's getting his figures. I do recall that Kalfear was sure the 'true' fans would rise up in droves and cast the game down, I'm not seeing that either.



Dragon Age: Origin's introduced a new IP. However, at least visually, it lacked it's own identity, something the dev's admit. So Bioware decides to differentiate their world from the droves of generic fantasy infesting the market, and some people complain.



I'm no longer surprised by this kind of fan reaction. Infamous 2 tried redesigning Cole and the fans yelled. Now they've gone back to something closer to the original and some fans are still complaining. So yeah, you're not going to please everyone, and some people will always find something to complain about.



Truth be told, I don't think Bioware would make the alterations to DA's presentation if they didn't honestly think it would work, and considering the commercial and critical success of ME 2 I'm inclined to trust their judgement.



I know some people think these changes are for the worse, and that's fine. However I'm glad Bioware's willing to try things like this rather than stagnate themselves by pumping out the same game over and over again.

[Heimdall]

Haexpane wrote...

Me2 combat is certainly more refined to ME1 combat, but I found ME1 more challenging and "exciting" if you will. I found ME2 combat a bit grindy and predictable. Lower shields, then freeze.

I use the abilities in ME2 only for show.

I personally find it near impossible to play through ME1 anymore because of the combat.  It just sort of feels... sluggish and not nearly as smooth to me.  Not to mention the aiming reticule...

[shootist70]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

Making it relevant = Mainstreaming = Simplifying = Dumbing Down

You're once again just rehashing that same tired old polarisation without actually grasping my argument. I'm starting to wonder where the 'dumbing down' really is here. Let me try and explain it in very concise terms:

Bioware, like a lot of creators of fiction, want theirs to go out to the widest audience possible. That audience doesn't want to excessively 'tinker with characters', and it's NOT because they're all dumb, but because they expect story-telling to follow certain universal conventions - to have a progressive narrative that focuses on recognisable 'human' dramatic themes, not masses of gear or skills. Visible 'game' mechanics are contrary to a seamless narrative and should be minimised.

You can't make RPGs relevant to the masses without turning them into action games.

Utter, utter garbage. Look at it this way, written fiction is a universal part of human culture, and most of it requires considerable time investment, yet it can conform perfectly to universal conventions of story-telling without all being 'action' oriented.  People generally love deep, involved story-telling, but the problem with RPG's is that for all their complexity they still tend to be mediocre at delivering a universally satisfactory experience. When you consider the potential for complexity this medium has you begin to wonder what potency it has for delivering those experiences. It could be a serious contender, but not while it's saddled with the parochial legacy of the genre.

[Bryy_Miller]

Kalfear wrote...

Truth be told, im finding the whole attitude by Bioware to be rather insulting and childish in nature on many occations reading this forum.

Okay. Give us quotes and reasons as to why you think it was childish or rude. Quite frankly, a lot of people on the forums literally demand preposterousness from the devs or just plain insult them before and/or after the devs have actually responded. It would be pretty hard for me to keep my cool with people telling me that I'm lying to them after I directly respond to their queries. The most you could possibly infer as being rude (as far as I can see) is David Gaider or Stanley Woo telling someone that they are being childish - and then explaining why the dev team can't do this or that.

[AlanC9]

shootist70 wrote...
Utter, utter garbage. Look at it this way, written fiction is a universal part of human culture, and most of it requires considerable time investment, yet it can conform perfectly to universal conventions of story-telling without all being 'action' oriented.  People generally love deep, involved story-telling, but the problem with RPG's is that for all their complexity they still tend to be mediocre at delivering a universally satisfactory experience. When you consider the potential for complexity this medium has you begin to wonder what potency it has for delivering those experiences. It could be a serious contender, but not while it's saddled with the parochial legacy of the genre.

Hold it. How would a more complex combat system interfere with storytelling? I'm not seeing the problem here.

[shootist70]

AlanC9 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...
Utter, utter garbage. Look at it this way, written fiction is a universal part of human culture, and most of it requires considerable time investment, yet it can conform perfectly to universal conventions of story-telling without all being 'action' oriented.  People generally love deep, involved story-telling, but the problem with RPG's is that for all their complexity they still tend to be mediocre at delivering a universally satisfactory experience. When you consider the potential for complexity this medium has you begin to wonder what potency it has for delivering those experiences. It could be a serious contender, but not while it's saddled with the parochial legacy of the genre.

Hold it. How would a more complex combat system interfere with storytelling? I'm not seeing the problem here.

Combat systems weren't mentioned, but the same points apply. Have it as complex as you want, but If it becomes too much a  vehicle for progression, or if it arrests the narrative excessively, then it needs to be minimised. Obviously, the optimum scenario would be maximum complexity that's streamlined as much as possible so it becomes seamless and not intrusive, but then artists of all types struggle to reach perfect balance.

Modifié par shootist70, 18 août 2010 - 11:24 .

[Vandrayke]

shootist70 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...
Utter, utter garbage. Look at it this way, written fiction is a universal part of human culture, and most of it requires considerable time investment, yet it can conform perfectly to universal conventions of story-telling without all being 'action' oriented.  People generally love deep, involved story-telling, but the problem with RPG's is that for all their complexity they still tend to be mediocre at delivering a universally satisfactory experience. When you consider the potential for complexity this medium has you begin to wonder what potency it has for delivering those experiences. It could be a serious contender, but not while it's saddled with the parochial legacy of the genre.

Hold it. How would a more complex combat system interfere with storytelling? I'm not seeing the problem here.

Combat systems weren't mentioned, but the same points apply. Have it as complex as you want, but If it becomes too much a  vehicle for progression, or if it arrests the narrative excessively, then it needs to be minimised. Obviously, the optimum scenario would be maximum complexity that's streamlined as much as possible so it becomes seamless and not intrusive, but then artists of all types struggle to reach perfect balance.

Yeah people don't necessarily want to avoid complication, they just don't feel like figuring stuff out sometimes.  But if you make it transparent enough that they start figuring stuff out without realizing it, then you have a winner.  Then they're sucked in and start to figure out more complicated ways to be more effective on their own.  

[Rapidiul]

This thread needs to be locked

[Sidney]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

What's also true is that the games DO need to be stripped of complexity to appeal to more people.

There is an entire market consisting of people who like simple games: The casual gamer market.


There is also a HUGE market consisting of people that just like to kill stuff, and the developers will strip away the character-building and strategy aspects of the Dragon Age franchise in order to appeal to these people and get more people to purchase the game.

There is no such thing as being "elitist." Simplification just doesn't appeal to certain people and there already is plenty of other games where the character is made for you and you just run around mashing A and X. Some people just prefer that Dragon Age be left out of that group of games and stick to it's RPG format.

 "I'm special becuase I play a game"  -- yes you and those like you are elitists.

There is nothing changing in DA2 about the combat so the "mashing the A and X" is just a strawman that all you ubermensch haven't been able to figure out doesn't exist. Not as smart as we think are we?

Still, there is nothing "complex" about the complexity you and the other reactionaries claim to love. The biggest gripe is all about inventory and yet nothing manages to be both tedious and brainless quite like this part of the game.

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

shootist70 wrote...

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

Making it relevant = Mainstreaming = Simplifying = Dumbing Down

You're once again just rehashing that same tired old polarisation without actually grasping my argument. I'm starting to wonder where the 'dumbing down' really is here. Let me try and explain it in very concise terms:

Bioware, like a lot of creators of fiction, want theirs to go out to the widest audience possible. That audience doesn't want to excessively 'tinker with characters', and it's NOT because they're all dumb, but because they expect story-telling to follow certain universal conventions - to have a progressive narrative that focuses on recognisable 'human' dramatic themes, not masses of gear or skills. Visible 'game' mechanics are contrary to a seamless narrative and should be minimised.

You can't make RPGs relevant to the masses without turning them into action games.

Utter, utter garbage. Look at it this way, written fiction is a universal part of human culture, and most of it requires considerable time investment, yet it can conform perfectly to universal conventions of story-telling without all being 'action' oriented.  People generally love deep, involved story-telling, but the problem with RPG's is that for all their complexity they still tend to be mediocre at delivering a universally satisfactory experience. When you consider the potential for complexity this medium has you begin to wonder what potency it has for delivering those experiences. It could be a serious contender, but not while it's saddled with the parochial legacy of the genre.

Dude, you're talking nonsense. The RPG gameplay did not interfere with Dragon Age's story at all. Look at all the crazy people(myself included) invested in that Morrigan-Warden relationship! If anything, the RPG elements endeared the story to us because WE built the Warden.

What it boils down to is that we are saying the same thing only your words have a positive connation whereas mine, a negative. The developers are shaking out a bit of the RPG game play to reach that audience that finds role-playing game play cumbersome and confusing.

The combat will be easier and there will be less character-building options because all that is too complicated for our shooter-happy gamer bretheren.

It's the same route Molyneux took with Fable 2 and it RUINED that sequel.

All I can do is shake my head and hope that they don't rip up the original game's design so much that it becomes unrecognizable.

[hagren]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Only if you have a really rigid, strict, immutable definition of what makes an RPG.

If you don't, then you may not even agree that ME2 was less of an RPG than ME1 was. And in that case, the point doesn't even apply.

I love RPGs, but that doesn't mean they can never be modernized or updated. Not everything that is traditionally part of an RPG has to be in an RPG in order for it to be considered an RPG. Just gotta keep an open mind.

soccer is soccer, rules have been adapting and changing for over 100 years, but if one day you make players play the ball with their hands, it's not soccer anymore. You can (and must) improve rules but the pillars must remain untouchable

You should read up on football, because American Football, Soccer and Rugby all evolved from ancient football. Therefore, you just self-owned yourself

[hagren]

Haexpane wrote...

Me2 combat is certainly more refined to ME1 combat, but I found ME1 more challenging and "exciting" if you will. I found ME2 combat a bit grindy and predictable. Lower shields, then freeze.

I use the abilities in ME2 only for show.

I could say the same thing about ME- pull, then shoot with radioactive pellets.

At least in my case (Soldier and Vanguard class), I had to rely on the powers of my companions far more, as well as ammo powers and a different array of weapons, to dispatch enemies quicker and more efficiently. In ME1, I alone was efficient enough to clear them, no need to worry about ammo any time. Alone the fact that I could pull a Geth Destroyer with ease made ME1 rather imbalanced, and the hyper-powerful shields didn't help much. In ME2, Shepard is dead very quickly if he does not keep out of the line of fire or lets enemies get too close. Not to mention that weapon and enemy variety in ME1 was a bit shoddy. But let's not talk  ME1 down, because that was a great game as well. Pretty unrefined and a tad repetitive, but damn memorable nonetheless.

I do agree however that squad armour customization  HAS to make a return.

Modifié par hagren, 19 août 2010 - 12:06 .

[shootist70]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

[
Dude, you're talking nonsense. The RPG gameplay did not interfere with Dragon Age's story at all. Look at all the crazy people(myself included) invested in that Morrigan-Warden relationship! If anything, the RPG elements endeared the story to us because WE built the Warden.

And that's a great example...a great example of you still not getting it. Players don't identify with their protaganists through fiddling with game mechanics, for the same reason that they don't identify with them through coldly delivered infodump. You identified with the Morrigan/warden relationship because of PRECISELY the elements I'm talking about : characterisation and dialogue - UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THEMES. Exactly the sort of things that RPG's should be maximising while minimising the game mechanics that represent progression obstacles and immersion/suspension of disbelief breakers.

Seriously, I don't mind debate but I draw the line at constantly trying to educate you on creative processes. Like I said earlier - where's the dumbing down really at?

Modifié par shootist70, 19 août 2010 - 12:10 .

[Sidney]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

What it boils down to is that we are saying the same thing only your words have a positive connation whereas mine, a negative. The developers are shaking out a bit of the RPG game play to reach that audience that finds role-playing game play cumbersome and confusing.

No one finds role playing game play confusing.  It isn't complex, everyone gets it. My 7 year old understands the game mechanics of DAO just fine - and no RPG in a long time has tried so hard to be obtuse about it's game mechanics as DAO.

Are the mechanics cumbersome, yes. That's because they are cumbersome and get in the way of the best parts of the game - story and characters. I know some of you in this thread find looting dead Darkspawn for garbage fun and then find even more fun in mindlessly selling all junk (just mashing ther "Y" button for you snobs) even more fun so you can play Barbie dress up with your characters - a game mechanic so complicated 5-10 year olds love it. That's great but, in the end, it isn't fun to normal humans without a personality disorder. If it was fun and engaging, you'd find it to be part of more great works of film and literature. I've always watched the Seven Samurai and felt it needed a guy buying and selling scene. I've read Beowulf longing for the epic moment when Beowulf sells the loot from Grendel's mother's cave. Sadly it was not to be, all those masters have clearly missed that moment of high action and deep human drama.  I did feel like the lady in front of me with 2 coupons and a shoppers card at Cosco today was really owning her role today though.

Most of the other sacred cows don't matter much either. XP per kill is a weak mechansim the only defense anyone can muster is that with your ferret on crack attention spans if you don't see 15XP floating over a corpse you don't feel rewarded - and yet, again, people argue it is the "shooters" that are watching short-attention-span theater,

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

shootist70 wrote...

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

[
Dude, you're talking nonsense. The RPG gameplay did not interfere with Dragon Age's story at all. Look at all the crazy people(myself included) invested in that Morrigan-Warden relationship! If anything, the RPG elements endeared the story to us because WE built the Warden.

And that's a great example...a great example of you still not getting it. Players don't identify with their protaganists through fiddling with game mechanics, for the same reason that they don't identify with them through coldly delivered infodump. You identified with the Morrigan/warden relationship because of PRECISELY the elements I'm talking about : characterisation and dialogue - UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THEMES. Exactly the sort of things that RPG's should be maximising while minimising the game mechanics that represent progression obstacles and immersion/suspension of disbelief breakers.

Seriously, I don't mind debate but I draw the line at constantly trying to educate you on creative processes. Like I said earlier - where's the dumbing down really at?

Dude, you're typing your responses as if you are speaking down to me, but if you hadn't noticed, you're coming off as an idiot. No one is arguing against the idea that players want to become immersed in the game's story. Are you reading what I'm writing?

Let me take this opportunity to now condescend to you, my fine would-be educator.

We are talking about a series that will presumably continue to be an RPG, even if it becomes as shallow as ME2.

What I am saying, oh Intelligent One, is that for people that LIKE RPGs, the character-building mechanics DO NOT hinder the "universal themes" of dialogue and characterization. For those of us that LIKE the role-playing aspects, the character-building is not a suspension of disbelief breaker. 

Now, let me teach you something YOU apparently do not know, oh great Educator of the Interwebz:

Your belief that role-playing aspects hinder the "universal themes" of Dragon Age is not a FACT. It is an OPINION.

Bioware is simplifying the role-playing aspects to appeal to the greater market of gamers as opposed to focusing on the base of RPG gamers it has built over the years.

Maybe you don't agree that the reason they are going this direction is because these other gamers are shooter-happy retards and that's fine, but the reality is that the developers will simplify the game in order to reach more people.

Do you deny that the game is being simplified to reach a greater number of gamers? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is off-topic but, once again just for good measure, I must remind you of how stupid you look while trying to appear to condescend to me.

Educate me...hahahahahaha!


Edit: To you and the person that posted the comment above this one:

No one in their right mind plays RPGs expecting not to interact with the game by killing enemies for experience and hunt for items and what not. Go play a different type of game, duh.

Also: RPGs /= Books /= Movies

That argument doesn't make any sense.

Modifié par Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens, 19 août 2010 - 12:48 .

[Sidney]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...
Edit: To you and the person that posted the comment above this one:

No one in their right mind plays RPGs expecting not to interact with the game by killing enemies for experience and hunt for items and what not. Go play a different type of game, duh.

Also: RPGs /= Books /= Movies

That argument doesn't make any sense.

No, you fail to grasp the notion that what is interesting in one medium is still interesting in others. What isn't, isn't. No one breaks up a good story with shopping. No one has a great action scene and punctuates it with an exciting bout of corpse robbing before moving on to the next action scene.

So because these are traditional elements they must always be? It also isn't true that I expect either of those things. I was perfectly content in Jade Empire to not hunt for items - in fact it was quite liberating to play the game and not a street sweeper. I also found ME2's mission based XP to be vastly more interesting that watching meaningless killing making me a better person in every other RPG.

Your problem is that you blithely accept what you are used to without asking "Why the heck is this crap in my game?" Instead you've used all that filler to create some vision of what a game should be and any variation from that is heresy and people should just be stamping out variations on the same theme over and over and over.

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...
Your problem is that you blithely accept what you are used to without asking "Why the heck is this crap in my game?"

If he likes the stuff he's got no particular reason to question it, though. It's not a problem for him until the rest of the market leaves him behind.

[wowpwnslol]

All I know if DA2 is as much of a disgrace to the RPG genre as ME2 , Bio will lose many fans. The complexities give the game replayability - I played ME2 exactly once because it's nothing but a shooter/interactive movie with no stats, horrendous "skill" selection, no inventory, bland classes and premade character. I easily put in 200+ hours into DA - Number of hours I put in ME2? 37. Just as much as it took to finish it.

[Morroian]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

The combat will be easier and there will be less character-building options because all that is too complicated for our shooter-happy gamer bretheren.

Streamlining combat doesn't mean its easier. They're removing the clunkier aspects of combat. From the sound of it combat will be just as tactical.

As for less character building nowhere has that been said.

[AlanC9]

How could combat get easier, anyway?