1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

Khavos wrote...

Ariella wrote...

To the op:

I can point out some CRPGs to you that had as much "choice" in stats, leveling, et al.

Quest for Glory comes to mind: No customization of how the character looked, no choice of gender, minimalist inventory (couldn't even choose the kind of weapon or armor you wanted to use until part 5).

Bioware's RPGs (and yes, they are RPGs) are becoming less along the vein of D&D and closer to the Storytelling system, where there was always less emphasis on the stat crunching end, having the best magical/technological whatsits and more about who the character is in the world and their struggles. DA and ME fit the spirit of what an rpg is better than many of the "old school games" that were labeled RPG (Don't get me wrong, I miss the old goldbox games sometimes, and things like Bard's Tale 3 but THOSE were closer to being action games than anything I've seen Bioware produce).

I'm sorry, did you not play ME2 or something?  That game was built as a shooter from the ground up, with RPG bits tacked on.  That's not opinion; the lead designer's own GDC presentation spells it out.  DA2's been described as playing like Ninja Gaiden.  They're making action games with (fewer and fewer) RPG elements.  If you honestly feel that being able to make Bioware's character say something in an angry tone instead of in a nice tone is all it takes to make a game an RPG, then I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

First of all, yes I DID play ME2 and you could make the same claim about ME1 considering it's fet in the future, or would you rather have Star Ocean where swords work fine against guns. Yes, the combat is built on a shooter model. It's logical.

You claim the lead designer's spelled it out give me some citations, both on the GDC presentation and the whole "Ninja Gaiden" thing.

It has nothing to do with making your characters say things in a nice tone vs an angry one, it has to do with the fact that the choices made by the character affect the world the character lives in. Alpha Protocol is a great example of this. Combat mechanic's a shooter, no question, but it isn't just about killing badguys. The choices you make, how you treat people can change things. We don't see as much of it in ME2 because it's the middle act of a three act play rather than a self contained story, but it's clear the choices we make will mean something. And from the framed narative they're going to be using, it's pretty obvious we'll be able to see our actions on the world right away, and that will make the story, which is what RPG is REALLY about: cooperative storytelling. In this case, it's between the player and the developers.

[Stefanocrpg_rev91]

Well, guys, Fallout and Torment while having just one background did offer a way more complete roleplay possibilities than DAO and even BG2, though I prefer Shadows of Amn overall.
They had a lot of stat and ability checks that make every pc different from the other, they had a very lot of dialogues and you could finish the game even avoiding almost every battles (yeah, even the bosses in both Fallout and Planescape: Torment).
Torment has even one of the greatest story and characters ever made in a game, though this is not an index of the goodness of its roleplay aspect.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with maxernst and Alan: the origins are a features born with the first Dragon Age and that doesn't preclude your possibilities of personalize your char, in that aspect DA2 will be just as the other RPGs of the past, BG2, Torment and Fallout included.

Modifié par Stefanocrpg_rev91, 12 août 2010 - 03:49 .

[Viking_Warrior]

To be fair Orgins had a longer development cycle. DA2 has probably been in the works for around a year. Shorter development cycle = less time to put things in the game. So I belive Bioware had to cut some corners to produce a quality game in such a short span, I think very few developers can have years to develope a game in this day and age. Instead they have to focus on what's achiveable.



To look at it in a posetive way, since Hawke has a set race and background the story (more than likely) will be deeper and more focused for that character than it would if we had several backgrounds to choose from, since Bioware was able to fully dvelve into Hawke and his/hers past'n future.



Im not a fan of voice-overs for protgonists in RPGS, as it cut's down dialouge and ruins immersion.. I want to see Bioware keep this Un-Mass Effectihs which I consider a RPG for the "Call of Duty generation". Still it's like comparing beef with bernaise with beef without sauce.

I think one has to play the completed product before one can make out if this is something for you.

[Bryy_Miller]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
You are mixing up the idea of a feature of the game with ownership of the character.

I specifically said I didn't know if I "owned" the characters, but that I am more than just a passive consumer of them. My point is my interaction with the character is different than my complete lack of interaction with Batman.  I never said I owned the characters.  However, I did help create my versions of the characters.  Bioware provided the tools and I took it from there.

But outside of the game, the character is not yours. It doesn't matter what the level of interaction is. Creating your own character is a feature of the game. Importing choices is, as well. That does not mean that it is any different from Batman.

If you're not saying anything about ownership, then I fail to see why you chose to respond. Because that's what the "big issue" is.

Everyone is getting hung up on Batman being print, when Woo's point was that characters are always owned by the people that actually own them, no matter how popular they are. Fans can like or not like whatever they want, but they don't have any kind of authority over the IP of Batman. They can "vote with their dollar", yes, but that does not mean they own the IP of Batman. 

The bottom line is that an IP is an IP. Now I'm wondering why I'm even in this thread again.

[maxernst]

Viking_Warrior wrote...

To be fair Orgins had a longer development cycle. DA2 has probably been in the works for around a year. Shorter development cycle = less time to put things in the game. So I belive Bioware had to cut some corners to produce a quality game in such a short span, I think very few developers can have years to develope a game in this day and age. Instead they have to focus on what's achiveable.

.

Maybe, but don't forget that BG2 was released less than 2 years after BG, and was bigger and better than the original.  Not having to create the world and game mechanics helps a lot with development.  Of course, after the success of BG they probably had the finances to hire more people...but I'm guessing Bioware's pretty flush right now too.

Unlike movies, I actually think game sequels are quite often better than the original.  I think it's because what they lose in originality, they make up for in polish: BG2 vs BG1 being a good example.  BG2 was nowhere near as groundbreaking, but it was way more fun to play.

Modifié par maxernst, 12 août 2010 - 04:24 .

[errant_knight]

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

[Bryy_Miller]

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

[Narreneth]

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.

That's why we are fans "if you don't like it don't buy it", right?

wrong

"I won't buy it and I will flame you to death till the end of the days"

You're a ****ing idiot; and, if you honestly act like this you need to grow the **** up. 

[Narreneth]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

[TheMadCat]

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

It isn't really about bringing in a different market, rather it's appeasing the ones who were disappointed with specific aspects (Including BioWare obviously, they wouldn't change something unless they felt a little disappointment towards it) and expanding further into that giant "casual" crowd (They're already deeply rooted in it, been there for a while).

[TMZuk]

maxernst wrote...

@TMZuk, in Baldur's Gate, the PC always had the same background...he was an orphan raised by Garion. Sure, you had control of his name and race and so on, but the game didn't respond very much to your race anyway and since you were raised by the same man regardless of race, you wouldn't have the normal cultural characteristics of being a dwarf/elf etc. anyway. I don't think there's any substantive difference between that and Hawke.

BTW, are you really claiming that Planescape: Torment is not a good RPG? Because you have far less choice in background there than you do in the Mass Effect games.

In DA2 you are playing Hawke, who hails from a specific place, who has a specific sister, and also a specific friend. He's born by specific parents, he has a specific voice, and I dare say, a specific beard, even though you can ommit it. He's BIOWARE'S creation. The Bhaalspawn was MY creation.

The ONLY thing that was fixed in BG was the fact that your character was the Bhaalspawn and therefore Gorion's ward. Everything else was up to yourself to determine. I've played BG as an halfelven rogue/tymorian priest, a human umberlar priestess, a human helmite paladin, an elven wizard, and god knows what else. That's why it is still fresh and fun to play.

Planescape: Torment is another thing entirely. First of all, I only played it through once. The story was great, but I never picked it up again. Secondly: while your background was fixed you knew nothing about it. The whole point of the game was to find out who you were. I do not see that happen in DA2.

I love the paintings of Max Ernst, btw.

Modifié par TMZuk, 12 août 2010 - 04:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Traditionally in RPGs, though, that isn't true of the PC.  We, the players, are the architects and owners of those characters.  We decide very nearly everything about them.  We are not passive consumers of that character's story - we help create that story by driving that character's decisions and developing his personality.

Bryy_Miller was right: "the fans never own a character created by someone else".  This is why the PC in an RPG - in order to get any measure of buy-in from RPG fans - needs to be created by the players.

[maxernst]

TMZuk wrote...

maxernst wrote...

@TMZuk, in Baldur's Gate, the PC always had the same background...he was an orphan raised by Garion. Sure, you had control of his name and race and so on, but the game didn't respond very much to your race anyway and since you were raised by the same man regardless of race, you wouldn't have the normal cultural characteristics of being a dwarf/elf etc. anyway. I don't think there's any substantive difference between that and Hawke.

BTW, are you really claiming that Planescape: Torment is not a good RPG? Because you have far less choice in background there than you do in the Mass Effect games.

The ONLY thing that was fixed in BG was the fact that your character was the Bhaalspawn and therefore Gorion's ward. Everything else was up to yourself to determine. I've played BG as an halfelven rogue/tymorian priest, a human umberlar priestess, a human helmite paladin, an elven wizard, and god knows what else. That's why it is still fresh and fun to play.

Being Gorion's ward meant that you had one specific childhood.  You will still be able to choose your class.  The only thing you won't be choosing is name and race.  How much difference do those things really make in the way BG plays out?

I think what makes a roleplaying game is having choices to make that reflect your character's views that affect the gameworld.  Planescape: Torment was wonderful because it actually had dialogue that forced you consider what your character really believed...that's way more important to me that what my character looks like.  There's a reason that virtually all games other than DA:O have you as an orphan, an amnesiac, an escaped prisoner, a shipwreck victim or something like that.  Having multiple origins that actually matter to what happens in the game requires an enormous amount of extra work. 

By the way, you have a specific friend (and sister in a way) in BG as well.  And a specific father figure.

Modifié par maxernst, 12 août 2010 - 05:03 .

[Dave of Canada]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they've got time machines.

[captain.subtle]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they've got time machines.

Hey I take offense at that... I got a wrist watch too....

[joriandrake]

captain.subtle wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they've got time machines.

Hey I take offense at that... I got a wrist watch too....

I don't have a time machine, only a borrowed Tardis

Modifié par joriandrake, 12 août 2010 - 05:05 .

[captain.subtle]

joriandrake wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they've got time machines.

Hey I take offense at that... I got a wrist watch too....

I don't have a time machine, only a borrowed Tardis

Dr. When's?

[joriandrake]

captain.subtle wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they've got time machines.

Hey I take offense at that... I got a wrist watch too....

I don't have a time machine, only a borrowed Tardis

Dr. When's?

Who

[captain.subtle]

joriandrake wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they've got time machines.

Hey I take offense at that... I got a wrist watch too....

I don't have a time machine, only a borrowed Tardis

Dr. When's?

Who

When (

[Dave of Canada]

joriandrake wrote...

Who

Dr.When! Why did you have to ask him who he was?

[joriandrake]

It is Doctor Who, don't make me take out my screwdriver! -.-

[captain.subtle]

joriandrake wrote...

It is Doctor Who, don't make me take out my screwdriver! -.-

Kidding!

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is why the PC in an RPG - in order to get any measure of buy-in from RPG fans - needs to be created by the players.

That is just patently inaccurate. I can easily cite myself as a disproving example. I am an RPG fan, yes a fan even of what you define as an RPG, and I am perfectly fine with buying into a PC that is created by the developers/writers of the game.