645 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Sir Occam:  People who call KotOR an Action RPG certainly are wrong

Despite lacking isometric like DA2 might? Despite being a straight console port?

 
Yep.

KoTOR was certainly no BG in terms of its mechanics.

I think it was pretty close to BG, apart from having an annoying interface.

[Rubbish Hero]

Wulfram wrote...I think it was pretty close to BG, apart from having an annoying interface.

KOTOR baldurs gate big baby no play RPG before.
Diet coke.

[Onyx Jaguar]

You mean new coke

[Rubbish Hero]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You mean new coke

No you bad anaolgy.
Diet, big deit. Robocop 3.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 26 août 2010 - 11:46 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

you mean Die Hard 4

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

David Gaider wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I would hope so David. I think you can understand where the fear of  consolization would come into play though.

I do understand where it comes from. It comes from a fear of consoles "tainting" PC games, and often a sense of elitism that console games (and gamers) are somehow less intelligent and discerning than their PC brethren. I don't consider it to be a good thing.

The console wars can kindly go to Off Topic, please.  DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2. That doesn't mean the story and characters are any less important to us-- these things don't exist in exclusion to each other, not on the game side and not on the platform side-- and while I don't doubt there's plenty of bad examples they exist on both sides of the fence. It's never just one or the other, except to those people who truly have an axe to grind.

I don't think I even elluded to any of those things at all. It was more a notion towards the removal of PC Centric features that don't work quite as well on a console. I've played enough PC ports where the console version was the lead sku that end up being esentially garbage on the PC side of things be it controls, GUI, or other interface issues.

It has very little to do with elitism at least with me. I own both a PS3 and a 360, and while I do enjoy both for games that work well on that type of set up, I also do enjoy traditional CRPG's that focus more on character building and story rather than the bang pow boom action.

The fears more come into play when devs talk camera changes in regards to the pc version which if over done could very well take away the more tactical gameplay that the PC version of Dragon Age employs. It has nothing to do with attacking one crowd or the other. Not in the slightest.

[fchopin]

I am happy they are telling us the truth.



I don't think anyone will be surprised as it was obvious the game was an action rpg.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

fchopin wrote...

I am happy they are telling us the truth.

I don't think anyone will be surprised as it was obvious the game was an action rpg.

Ray did kinda let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

[thenemesis77]

Whats funny is, that while I did Play DAO, is the fact my character did not get into place all the time, nor did my other teammates, so if Mike says they want them to react faster, I welcome that. It does not take away from the RPG element, nor does saying its a action RPG, if it's faster, thats good, and you can still hit space bar to pause the game and issue commands, that alone is a tatical RPG. We have all ****ed at these guys, I think they want to make a better playing game.

[Reaverwind]

In Exile wrote...

So what all of this comes down to is that these definitions are very arbitrary and poorly refined. I get what an action RPG is versus an actual RPG in principle, but IMO we lost absolute determination of attacks by character skill when we lost true turn-based RPGs.

It's got nothing to do with character skill. What differentiates DA from action RPG's is the fact that if you're not directing your character to use a talent or spell, he/she is auto-attacking with his/her sword/bow/staff. That doesn't happen in a game like Gothic, where each and every attack must be initiated and/or directed by the player, not to mention incoming attacks often must be manually blocked or dodged. There's often no auto-aim in these games as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tsuga C wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

RPG means nothing really

labels are meaningless

I do hope that Sylvius see this...little gem. 

As far as marketing materials go, I'd say that's probably true.  As soon as a game like Mass Effect can be described in its marketing as an RPG and not cause huge public outcry, then the term ceases to be at all valuable in that context.

That it continues to be used only demonstrates the absurdity of the entire marketing process.

If I come to the forum and the developers tell me about a specific feature that appears in the game (or doesn't), that's information I can use.  But the marketing materials aren't directed at me, and they're not even intended to be informative.  They're intended to drive behaviour.  So yes, when it appears in marketing materials, the term RPG is functionally meaningless.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
RPG means nothing really
labels are meaningless

I do hope that Sylvius see this...little gem. 

As far as marketing materials go, I'd say that's probably true.

Accurate. Marketing terms in games these days hold very little meaning outside of letting you know who they are targeting.

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...
DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2.

And that's what many people see as a bad thing - DA:O had enough action in it, without any need for ramping it up. Action elements generally don't combine well with pause-and-play, especially on those difficulty levels where pause-and-play becomes necessary for survival...

I tend to enjoy the purer RPGs more than those RPGs that are watered down with action elements, generally.

[Dave of Canada]

Nighteye2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2.

And that's what many people see as a bad thing - DA:O had enough action in it, without any need for ramping it up. Action elements generally don't combine well with pause-and-play, especially on those difficulty levels where pause-and-play becomes necessary for survival...

I tend to enjoy the purer RPGs more than those RPGs that are watered down with action elements, generally.

Just curious, do you happen to have played the console version of the game where pause and play was almost unplayable?

[DragonRageGT]

I did read it all.. uff... and it makes no difference to me what's a game is labeled. If it is fun, it is worthy. The Witcher is one of the greatest games released recently, despite the label people may give it. Risen is another one. All that Gothic 3 should have been but failed and I suspect because of the publishers interference in the production process. Dragon Age Origins is my best ever.



And console games can be ported to PC with quality. Fable - The Lost Chapters, did it. And it was a fun game to play with many mini-games that "inspired" other Titles to use them.



I just would love to be as excited with DA2 release as I am with The Witcher 2. Of course, creating expectations or anticipating suffering can be very frustrating since reality will hardly correspond to any.



However, as far as the marketing goes, well, I can't help the feeling that DA2 is indeed addressed to the justinbieber audience, because there is where the money is. The rest is just a bonus.

[JigPig]

lol people watch G4

[errant_knight]

Is anyone really surprised? They've been telling us that's what this was from the beginning, just not so explicitly. While some might like to paint the issues people have with most of the news we've gotten as mindless 'fear of change', there are good reasons for the dismay.

[Dave of Canada]

errant_knight wrote...

there are good reasons for the dismay.

Like what? Most complaints that have been shot down by Laidlaw?

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2.

And that's what many people see as a bad thing - DA:O had enough action in it, without any need for ramping it up. Action elements generally don't combine well with pause-and-play, especially on those difficulty levels where pause-and-play becomes necessary for survival...

I tend to enjoy the purer RPGs more than those RPGs that are watered down with action elements, generally.

Just curious, do you happen to have played the console version of the game where pause and play was almost unplayable?

If they were only changing the console version to make it more playable, I would have no issues at all, but regardless of what was inintially announced, it really sounds like that's not the case.

[Dave of Canada]

errant_knight wrote...

If they were only changing the console version to make it more playable, I would have no issues at all, but regardless of what was inintially announced, it really sounds like that's not the case.

So regardless of what was said by Bioware on multiple occasions, you'd rather believe it to not be true?

[Nighteye2]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2.

And that's what many people see as a bad thing - DA:O had enough action in it, without any need for ramping it up. Action elements generally don't combine well with pause-and-play, especially on those difficulty levels where pause-and-play becomes necessary for survival...

I tend to enjoy the purer RPGs more than those RPGs that are watered down with action elements, generally.

Just curious, do you happen to have played the console version of the game where pause and play was almost unplayable?

No, just the PC version where Nightmare was still a bit too easy. I don't really care much about the console versions, as I only play RPGs on the PC - I play other genres on the consoles, but not RPGs.

If pause-and-play is almost unplayable on the console, they should advise console players to choose a lower difficulty setting where there's no need to pause the game except in rare occasions. But the PC version should offer a healthy amount of challenge requiring planning and execution of strategies, as you could do in DA:O: pause the game and give everyone orders, then unpause and watch how well the plan works.

[SirOccam]

Nighteye2 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2.

And that's what many people see as a bad thing - DA:O had enough action in it, without any need for ramping it up. Action elements generally don't combine well with pause-and-play, especially on those difficulty levels where pause-and-play becomes necessary for survival...

I tend to enjoy the purer RPGs more than those RPGs that are watered down with action elements, generally.

I don't think it necessarily means they're adding MORE action, but they are "amping up" (another nice phrase that can mean just about anything) what action IS there.

On the face of it, I think it's a good thing. The action in DAO was fine, but I really hated the awkward shuffling they keep referring to. It should not take that long just to get in a position to swing a weapon. It made things like the beginning of the last battle really annoying, because things die so fast that mages and archers keep picking them off before you can get your sword-wielding character in place long enough to actually take a swing. I think there's plenty of progress to be made there.

Whatever they do with combat, my own personal view is that combat is just one facet of the game, and not even the most important facet. For me, it's just a way to get from one storyline event to the next. I'd prefer it be as entertaining as possible, and I think the changes they've described so far (if I'm not misunderstanding) are going to help a lot in that regard.

[BubbleDncr]

I'm gonna say,



I started playing Bioware game with Dragon Age. I freakin loved that game, so even though sci-fi wasn't as interesting to me as a genre, I played Mass Effect. Didn't love it as much as Dragon Age, but enough to play Mass Effect 2, and I think they're both awesome games. Even tho I've never been much for shooters - hell, I suck at them - the gameplay was still fun. The thing that puts Dragon Age above Mass Effect for me, is a) the fantasy setting over the sci-fi setting, and the crazy amount of choices and customization there is,



So just this last week, I bought KoTOR and started playing that. And while I'm enjoying it, I can say I have no issues with Bioware games becoming more action-rpg. In fact, I'm glad they are. Combat in KoTOR is too un-involved. Yes, I would rather button mash and have fast paced action then just watch the computer make attack rolls for me over and over. I get enough attack rolls doing table top rpgs - and at least then I actually get to roll the dice.

[Rubbish Hero]

Dragon Age problem no too much action, redundant enemy.

If DA2 redundant enemy, but more only now more pew! pew! for baby Gears of War user, still suck, actually, probably more suck.