771 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Its not even completely about having Origins really. Bioware games have always been fairly linear in plot regardless. What customization offers is the ability to replay through using different options, be it skills, gear, conversation and party choices and have the game still be a somewhat unique experience. Streamlining that down to one choice and stripping alot of the conversation out because nowadays you need VO for some reason doesn't offer as much along the lines of replayability imo.

Along the line they're going now I would not be at all surprised if DA3 has one PC and one class so that they can impact the story line or what not. Its a lame reason given to remove stuff that alot of people enjoyed out of past Bioware titles.

The dialogue system allows up to five choices, with the sixth for the Investigate option. DAO allowed up to six, IIRC. As far as skills, gear, conversation, and party choices go, we know too little about anything...there's only a few hours to go until we know more, though...

Modifié par Saibh, 17 août 2010 - 02:35 .

[Dave of Canada]

NKKKK wrote...

Lol Monty Python. Anyways Bioware will soon be called EA studios Edmonton and EA studios Austin.

I know it's an obvious QQ attempt but I'll bite. Bioware's name would never be changed to EA Edmonton simply due to the "Bioware" label being enough to sell games alone. It's the same reason why Activison didn't dissolve Infinity Ward after more than half the company left, the brand itself is worth too much to them.

[Saibh]

Dave of Canada wrote...

NKKKK wrote...

Lol Monty Python. Anyways Bioware will soon be called EA studios Edmonton and EA studios Austin.

I know it's an obvious QQ attempt but I'll bite. Bioware's name would never be changed to EA Edmonton simply due to the "Bioware" label being enough to sell games alone. It's the same reason why Activison didn't dissolve Infinity Ward after more than half the company left, the brand itself is worth too much to them.

Exactly. I lived years with being internetless before DAO came out...I hadn't even heard of it, in fact. They said it was by BioWare, and I answered "sold!".

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

NKKKK wrote...

Lol Monty Python. Anyways Bioware will soon be called EA studios Edmonton and EA studios Austin.

I know it's an obvious QQ attempt but I'll bite. Bioware's name would never be changed to EA Edmonton simply due to the "Bioware" label being enough to sell games alone. It's the same reason why Activison didn't dissolve Infinity Ward after more than half the company left, the brand itself is worth too much to them.

I dunno, Westwood used to have a pretty good following and they're EA LA now, I wouldn't totally count it out down the line.

I was under the impression there was no more IW now that Treyarch and Sledgehammer are tasked with the COD property.

[AmstradHero]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
No you're just reinforcing the point that everything needs to be "streamlined" and stripped down to sell well these days to appeal to the ADD crowd that esentially makes up the market.

That's an erroneous conclusion based on... I don't even know what. Heck, if NWN1 came out now, *I* wouldn't buy it, and I got it on the first day it was released. A linear, stale plot, no NPCs with any real personality to speak of, no significant choices to make, that's not to mention the clunky UI and mediocre graphics. BG1? Same deal. BG2... maybe we've got something a little better, but at least I confess I can't be 100% objective about the game.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its not even completely about having Origins really. Bioware games have always been fairly linear in plot regardless. What customization offers is the ability to replay through using different options, be it skills, gear, conversation and party choices and have the game still be a somewhat unique experience. Streamlining that down to one choice and stripping alot of the conversation out because nowadays you need VO for some reason doesn't offer as much along the lines of replayability imo.

Along the line they're going now I would not be at all surprised if DA3 has one PC and one class so that they can impact the story line or what not. Its a lame reason given to remove stuff that alot of people enjoyed out of past Bioware titles.

Stripping a lot of the conversation out? Did we play the same game called Dragon Age? We must not have, becase DAO had a bucketload of dialogue. No, not as much as BG2 or Planescape, but they both had phenomenal amounts of writing. At which point you're just talking about "MOAR!", which is a stale argument.

It's hard to know which games you're comparing here, but let's do a quick take and rank some games based on their complexity in the categories you've mentioned:
Skills: NWN (3rd edition craziness), DAO (every class has lots of different skills), BG2 (spellcasters are the only ones who get any significant options), BG1 (very limited)
Gear: BG2 (lots of variety here), NWN, DAO, BG1(I'd consider both the last two fairly limited, but crafting probably tips DAO slightly ahead)
Conversation: DAO(might be shorter than BG2, but you get a lot more meaningful choices), BG2, NWN/BG1.
Party Choice: BG1 (heaps of NPCs), BG2, DAO, NWN (a few henchmen, and you only get to take one).

Less customisation in DAO? Pray tell... HOW? BG2 is the only one providing any sort of competition here, and it lacks all the modern bells and whistles that DAO has.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 17 août 2010 - 02:50 .

[In Exile]

Saibh wrote...
The dialogue system allows up to five choices, with the sixth for the Investigate option. DAO allowed up to six, IIRC. As far as skills, gear, conversation, and party choices go, we know too little about anything...there's only a few hours to go until we know more, though...

Often less choices.

For example, in one of the conversations with Morrigan (fresh since I am playing DA):

Morrigan: "There are things about human society which have always puzzled me. Such as the touching -- why all the touching for a simple greeting?"

Warden: 1. It's not "human" society. You're in Ferelden. 2. Touching? Like a handshake? 3. Were you upset by all the bad touching?

These are all very specific statements and responses.

And this highlights my non-paraphrase issue, actually.

1 is very confusing for me. I'm not sure how that line is being delivered. Is it taken to be dismissive? Is it a correction?

3 is more obviously sarcastic, but often out of the problem with knowing how the game plays your line, using 1/3 can be just as jarring as the nonsensical consequences of the paraphrase.

ETA:

Not to menton that for 3, Morrigan seems to think "bad touching" somehow mean sexual like groping and that the line was somehow an expression of concern, whereas I just took it to mean a general smart as reply, as in 'WTF do you mean all the touching?"

Modifié par In Exile, 17 août 2010 - 02:53 .

[Dave of Canada]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I dunno, Westwood used to have a pretty good following and they're EA LA now, I wouldn't totally count it out down the line.

Most companies tend to have a lot of followers, though. Bioware is the King of RPGs and turning them into EA  would simply anger a lot of fans and make a known brand disappear. I don't even remember what Westwood did. Nox for the PC and maybe Lion King for the SNES?

I was under the impression there was no more IW now that Treyarch and Sledgehammer are tasked with the COD property.

Infinity Ward as it was doesn't exist anymore, the "company" still exists but under EA's banner now. Unfortunately, the name is still under Activison and they are restaffing it in an effort to do more COD games. The fanboys that play Modern Warfare 2 religiously don't know or care that IW isn't the same people; he'll only see "OMG IW" and buy it.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 17 août 2010 - 03:01 .

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Most companies tend to have a lot of followers, though. Bioware is the King of RPGs and turning them into EA  would simply anger a lot of fans and make a known brand disappear. I don't even remember what Westwood did. Nox for the PC and maybe Lion King for the SNES?

Dune and Command & Conquer? Though with C&C you might say that the name itself sells as a series versus the brand.

Still, Dune II (and Dune, honestly) were awesome games and the best party of the PC way back when. I still remember how absolutely impossible the game was for me when I was 5, running it in MS-DOS and understanding one english word out of 3.

[Well]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

@Cos Sarah Jinstar

I don't believe David said that DAO was catering to a niche. Nor did he appear to say the BG1, BG2 and NWN were catering to a niche at the time of their release. (However, I wouldn't presume to put words into his mouth)

Consider this hypothetical: If any of those older games (BG1, BG2 or NWN) were released for the first time today exactly as they were upon their initial release date, can you imagine the sort of reception they would get? If you argue that they would be well received and sell as well as DAO if it were released for the first time today, then I'd have to say that you're completely out of touch with the modern gaming market.

No you're just reinforcing the point that everything needs to be "streamlined" and stripped down to sell well these days to appeal to the ADD crowd that esentially makes up the market. I hardly find RPG's to be a niche market myself in the first place to be honest with you. There is still a sizable market for titles like BG and NWN, the 30+ crowd that grew up on them would gladly still buy them I've no doubt.

It just seems strange to me to see people ask for less customization options as though it somehow makes the games better. As I always felt one of the main points of playing an RPG in the first place were those same options. I guess I'm just an irrelevant old schooler who isn't impressed by "the new ****"

As Sable pointed out in her thread, most RPGs don't give you Origins, and are plenty good. The six we had spoiled us. I would prefer less Origins and have a greater impact on the storyline, then more Origins and have a fairly linear plot.

Its not even completely about having Origins really. Bioware games have always been fairly linear in plot regardless. What customization offers is the ability to replay through using different options, be it skills, gear, conversation and party choices and have the game still be a somewhat unique experience. Streamlining that down to one choice and stripping alot of the conversation out because nowadays you need VO for some reason doesn't offer as much along the lines of replayability imo.

Along the line they're going now I would not be at all surprised if DA3 has one PC and one class so that they can impact the story line or what not. Its a lame reason given to remove stuff that alot of people enjoyed out of past Bioware titles.

That hit the nail on the head.It is about the replayability of the game.With diverse choices you add to it.

[Saibh]

In Exile wrote...

Saibh wrote...
The dialogue system allows up to five choices, with the sixth for the Investigate option. DAO allowed up to six, IIRC. As far as skills, gear, conversation, and party choices go, we know too little about anything...there's only a few hours to go until we know more, though...

Often less choices.

For example, in one of the conversations with Morrigan (fresh since I am playing DA):

Morrigan: "There are things about human society which have always puzzled me. Such as the touching -- why all the touching for a simple greeting?"

Warden: 1. It's not "human" society. You're in Ferelden. 2. Touching? Like a handshake? 3. Were you upset by all the bad touching?

These are all very specific statements and responses.

And this highlights my non-paraphrase issue, actually.

1 is very confusing for me. I'm not sure how that line is being delivered. Is it taken to be dismissive? Is it a correction?

3 is more obviously sarcastic, but often out of the problem with knowing how the game plays your line, using 1/3 can be just as jarring as the nonsensical consequences of the paraphrase.

ETA:

Not to menton that for 3, Morrigan seems to think "bad touching" somehow mean sexual like groping and that the line was somehow an expression of concern, whereas I just took it to mean a general smart as reply, as in 'WTF do you mean all the touching?"

Aha, and that cements my point about how icons are good thing.

One sounds a bit rude, and since Morrigan is such a hot-cold character, do I dare use it? Or is it clinical? Is stating it as a fact going to bother her? Three I did interpret to mean sexual advances, but I figured Morrigan would be offended if it were a) true or she assumed I thought she was weak.

Now, I believe in a certain amount of unpredictability when it comes to character reaction, but I would like to know exactly how I'm saying something. It doesn't help me any if my love interest takes a flirty or firm reply to be an insult (I always think of Alistair's bad reaction to my saying "It depends on the gentleman"). With an icon that tells us the intent, I don't feel as if my companion's poor reaction to whatever I said is unfair.

[TimelordDC]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Most companies tend to have a lot of followers, though. Bioware is the King of RPGs and turning them into EA  would simply anger a lot of fans and make a known brand disappear. I don't even remember what Westwood did. Nox for the PC and maybe Lion King for the SNES?

Slander! They started the whole Command and Conquer series.

[jonluke93]

Dave of Canada wrote...

NKKKK wrote...

Lol Monty Python. Anyways Bioware will soon be called EA studios Edmonton and EA studios Austin.

I know it's an obvious QQ attempt but I'll bite. Bioware's name would never be changed to EA Edmonton simply due to the "Bioware" label being enough to sell games alone. It's the same reason why Activison didn't dissolve Infinity Ward after more than half the company left, the brand itself is worth too much to them.

Speaking of the Lion King I wonder if they will ever release that on PSN or the Live Arcade I have fond memories of that game and how ridiculously hard it was when I was a kid

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AmstradHero wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
No you're just reinforcing the point that everything needs to be "streamlined" and stripped down to sell well these days to appeal to the ADD crowd that esentially makes up the market.

That's an erroneous conclusion based on... I don't even know what. Heck, if NWN1 came out now, *I* wouldn't buy it, and I got it on the first day it was released. A linear, stale plot, no NPCs with any real personality to speak of, no significant choices to make, that's not to mention the clunky UI and mediocre graphics. BG1? Same deal. BG2... maybe we've got something a little better, but at least I confess I can't be 100% objective about the game.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its not even completely about having Origins really. Bioware games have always been fairly linear in plot regardless. What customization offers is the ability to replay through using different options, be it skills, gear, conversation and party choices and have the game still be a somewhat unique experience. Streamlining that down to one choice and stripping alot of the conversation out because nowadays you need VO for some reason doesn't offer as much along the lines of replayability imo.

Along the line they're going now I would not be at all surprised if DA3 has one PC and one class so that they can impact the story line or what not. Its a lame reason given to remove stuff that alot of people enjoyed out of past Bioware titles.

Stripping a lot of the conversation out? Did we play the same game called Dragon Age? We must not have, becase DAO had a bucketload of dialogue. No, not as much as BG2 or Planescape, but they both had phenomenal amounts of writing. At which point you're just talking about "MOAR!", which is a stale argument.

It's hard to know which games you're comparing here, but let's do a quick take and rank some games based on their complexity in the categories you've mentioned:
Skills: NWN (3rd edition craziness), DAO (every class has lots of different skills), BG2 (spellcasters are the only ones who get any significant options), BG1 (very limited)
Gear: BG2 (lots of variety here), NWN, DAO, BG1(I'd consider both the last two fairly limited, but crafting probably tips DAO slightly ahead)
Conversation: DAO(might be shorter than BG2, but you get a lot more meaningful choices), BG2, NWN/BG1.
Party Choice: BG1 (heaps of NPCs), BG2, DAO, NWN (a few henchmen, and you only get to take one).

Less customisation in DAO? Pray tell... HOW? BG2 is the only one providing any sort of competition here, and it lacks all the modern bells and whistles that DAO has.

Less classes for one, not many unique useful gear for another, and DA2 appears to offer even less what with the only choice being a male or female Hawke.  Awakening also had far far less conversation options than DA:O, unless you found that one special bush or tree that companions gave a heck about.

Slowly but surely we're getting less content but paying the same, or in the case of consoles and DLC more.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Less classes for one, not many unique useful gear for another, and DA2 appears to offer even less what with the only choice being a male or female Hawke.  Awakening also had far far less conversation options than DA:O, unless you found that one special bush or tree that companions gave a heck about.

Awakenings is not evidence of anything seeing as how it was an expansion that used a new conversation system which won't be used for DA2, although parts of it may be.

[Challseus]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

But please tell me if you enjoyed Origins have you actually played the Baldur's Gate series, and if you have please tell me if Origins actually reminded you of Baldur's Gate and whether you felt it was a fitting tribute.

I really enjoyed Dragon Age Origins. A lot. I also played Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 back in the day, and enjoyed the hell out of them. They essentially introduced me to western style RPG's. I come from the world of JRPG's, and both these games are in my top 5 RPG's of all time.

As far as things that reminded me of BG, well, the tactical combat, to be honest. Tactical, full party control combat... Good times... As for being a fitting tribute, well, the notion itself is clearly subjective, but I never went into the game thinking it had to be X or Y. I just went in to enjoy it for what is was, not for what it wasn't. That's where most people go wrong these days, when playing games.

Finally, do I think the old Bioware is dead? Of course they are! It's called evolution. If I wanted to play Bioware games that had that western style, old school rpg feel, I would play their games from the late 90's/early 2000's.
 
It's 2010, and time to move on.

[AmstradHero]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Less customisation in DAO? Pray tell... HOW? BG2 is the only one providing any sort of competition here, and it lacks all the modern bells and whistles that DAO has.

Less classes for one, not many unique useful gear for another, and DA2 appears to offer even less what with the only choice being a male or female Hawke.  Awakening also had far far less conversation options than DA:O, unless you found that one special bush or tree that companions gave a heck about.

Being a Warrior or a Ranger or a Paladin made so much difference to me because... hrmm, I might get to use slightly different gear? Being a mage vs a specialist mage or a sorceror... these are the quibbles you're getting into?  And what difference did picking your race have in BG2 aside from a slightly different character model and maybe a handful of conversations that had minor changes?

I'm not going to replay a game in full just so my main character can use a different set of armour and a different sword. However, I will replay a game if I get to pick between sparing an entire order of mages or destroying them and get numerous other weighty decisions. I'd say the "customisation" you're referring to and lauding as the pinnacle component of RPGs is cosmetic at best. Maybe that means RPG to you, but it doesn't to me. And as I said before, I'm sure you can find some indie RPGs that will fulfill that craving.

Also, Awakening doesn't come into play here, because if you're going to draw that card, then Throne of Bhaal had far far less conversation options than DA:O. Compare apples with apples, please.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 17 août 2010 - 03:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Saibh wrote...

Aha, and that cements my point about how icons are good thing.

It also cements my point about how icons are a bad thing.

At least in DAO you can intend those lines however you like.  You only get a small group from which to choose, but you can say them howerver you'd like.

I always took the "bad touching" line as a cheap joke, and Morrigan's response was entirely consistent with that.  She didn't get the joke, but she's in the middle of a conversation about how she doesn't understand society, so her misunderstanding me makes perfect sense.

With the wheel, not only can you not say the line however you'd like, but you don't even know what the line is until after you've said it.  If I spoke that lazily I'd get fired.

[Onyx Jaguar]

TimelordDC wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Most companies tend to have a lot of followers, though. Bioware is the King of RPGs and turning them into EA  would simply anger a lot of fans and make a known brand disappear. I don't even remember what Westwood did. Nox for the PC and maybe Lion King for the SNES?

Slander! They started the whole Command and Conquer series.

Eye of the Beholder
Lands of Lore
Blade Runner
Dune series

But they decided it would be a good idea to launch a MMO

You know what happens to companies that have failures that big?

Westwood knows

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 17 août 2010 - 03:24 .

[Stonetwister]

Bioware isn't the exact same company it was 15 years ago any more than you are the exact same person you were 15 years ago. We all change and grow.

Bioware has grown for the better in my opinion. Both Origins and Mass Effect are amazing games and I love them both.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AmstradHero wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Less customisation in DAO? Pray tell... HOW? BG2 is the only one providing any sort of competition here, and it lacks all the modern bells and whistles that DAO has.

Less classes for one, not many unique useful gear for another, and DA2 appears to offer even less what with the only choice being a male or female Hawke.  Awakening also had far far less conversation options than DA:O, unless you found that one special bush or tree that companions gave a heck about.

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.

Being a Warrior or a Ranger or a Paladin made so much difference to me because... hrmm, I might get to use slightly different gear? Being a mage vs a specialist mage or a sorceror... these are the quibbles you're getting into?  And what difference did picking your race have in BG2 aside from a slightly different character model and maybe a handful of conversations that had minor changes?

I'm not going to replay a game in full just so my main character can use a different set of armour and a different sword. However, I will replay a game if I get to pick between sparing an entire order of mages or destroying them and get numerous other weighty decisions. I'd say the "customisation" you're referring to and lauding as the pinnacle component of RPGs is cosmetic at best. Maybe that means RPG to you, but it doesn't to me. And as I said before, I'm sure you can find some indie RPGs that will fulfill that craving.

Also, Awakening doesn't come into play here, because if you're going to draw that card, then Throne of Bhaal had far far less conversation options than DA:O. Compare apples with apples, please.

Um its called role playing, kinda the point of the whole genre to begin with, obviously the genre as it was once known is dying since folks like you can't be bothered to have more than a couple class choices since aparently y'all get bored real easy. DA:O still had branching story points even with those extra options. Seems pretty silly to remove them just for the sake of removing them.

[Onyx Jaguar]

What the hell is role playing, I want to be completely certain of what it implies

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What the hell is role playing, I want to be completely certain of what it implies

class options be it base stuff like fighter, mage, etc or specialist like Ranger, Healer etc.  Background choices like Elf or dwarf or Spider god or what have you. Strip all those elements out and what you're left with is esentially a glorified action game. Ho hum.

[Challseus]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What the hell is role playing, I want to be completely certain of what it implies

Strip all those elements out and what you're left with is esentially a glorified action game. Ho hum.

That sounds like a cool game. Where can I get that?

[Onyx Jaguar]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What the hell is role playing, I want to be completely certain of what it implies

class options be it base stuff like fighter, mage, etc or specialist like Ranger, Healer etc.  Background choices like Elf or dwarf or Spider god or what have you. Strip all those elements out and what you're left with is esentially a glorified action game. Ho hum.

If you have the class options and specialists why would the Background choices matter?

In AD&D I guess you had "bonuses" but why not just have that integrated into a flat plane in regards to the classes?