645 réponses à ce sujet

[FDrage]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They're not close to dead.  Isn't there a Drakensang 2 in development?

already out ... at least in Germany et al.. They are working on an xPac for that ... Not sure about the english version so.

RageGT wrote...[

I don't see why people keep labeling The Witcher as an action RPG and then say that DA:O is not. Combat system, whether it's turn based, dice roll, real time, controlled by computer, script or player OOC skill+character skills hardly defines it.

That just shows in the end how meaninless labels can be ... Me on the other side would think of "The Witcher" , "Gothic 3", "Oblivion" et al. style of combat when I heard the term "Action RPG" ... incidently that was the
reason why I gave up on The WItcher (also on my close-fist JE play through (twice in fact) ... stupid Fox-Haven fight), Oblivion and Gothic 3 ... it was all to do with that style of combat. I did like the enviroment and the atmosphere in Witcher and also Gothic 3 (stupid boars ... still hate them), but that style of combat is what kept my from experiencing the whole atmosphere, the whoile story ... so in fact where more detrimental to my gaming experience then any story, loire or graphics aspects.

So anyone labling a game (that I haven't seen anything about or not played myself) rings a bit of an alarm bell, not
necessart because it will be like that but because of past "bad" experiences.

Also marketing won;t help much this time around as they proibably focus more on the consol versions as the Combat for console will be more playing to their strengths and the PC combat will be kept more or less the same as in DA:O. So we probably see more of the "flowing combat" on the consoles, as it is the NEW thing, then the more "tactical" approach that is possible (not mandatory) on the PC ...

Modifié par FDrage, 27 août 2010 - 11:33 .

[FDrage]

<deleted>

Modifié par FDrage, 27 août 2010 - 11:32 .

[Kolos2]

aint it interesting how Bioware started to jungle with sub genres to justify the policy change ?
Gaider already stated that the 5 year development cycle (DA.O) aint profitable, so the change might be logical (action rpgs do take less time to develop since thy aint that complex)

Truth be told i would respect, if thy said, that thy are focusing more into action and leaving the old model behind , afterall  DA started before EA got its hand on it . I might or not buy the game but this is just plain misleading.


Just say it plain and stop this Mass Effect can be a hardcore rpg nonsense 

Modifié par Kolos2, 27 août 2010 - 11:41 .

[Raxxman]

It's interesting FDrage, because I had the exact opposite response to you.
DA:O I dropped at the landsmeet because I couldn't stomach how terrible the combat was imo. As a fairly experienced RTS player (TS high 20s in DOW2, Plat league in SC2, whumped the campaign on brutal) I found the RTS aspect of DA:O to be horrible. I found myself dragging through encounter after encounter to get to the next story section.
In contrast the combat of the witcher kept me entertained, taking on a mob of Wvyrens in The Witcher was fun, in contrast taking on the dragons in DA:O was a ball ache.

[FDrage]

Raxxman wrote...

It's interesting FDrage, because I had the exact opposite response to you.
DA:O I dropped at the landsmeet because I couldn't stomach how terrible the combat was imo. As a fairly experienced RTS player (TS high 20s in DOW2, Plat league in SC2, whumped the campaign on brutal) I found the RTS aspect of DA:O to be horrible. I found myself dragging through encounter after encounter to get to the next story section.
In contrast the combat of the witcher kept me entertained, taking on a mob of Wvyrens in The Witcher was fun, in contrast taking on the dragons in DA:O was a ball ache.

Wvyrns ... swamp ... .. well actually they weren't that bad .. but the swamp gave me the Coupe-de-grace (spelling) in the end ... . The curious thing is that I do like  RTS ... so seldomly play it on the hardest difficulty levels and usually only more "friendly" matches against friend and not really purely online ... ... but overall I come more from a more chess oprientated background then from the more reactive background and to some degree that show in my present day preferences ... so there are some adjustments adjustments (RTS, Deus EX, ME ... ).

Modifié par FDrage, 27 août 2010 - 12:41 .

[metal_dawn]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

I just want to say the "love the game or shut up" people are ridiculously pushy and annoying....

Anyway, I love how Gaider comes on here and says DA was an action RPG "in some respects" as if he doesn't realize that most people that aren't determined to eat up whatever he says understand that there is a definite, undeniable distinction between Action-RPGs like Fable or the Witcher and RPGs like Dragon Age.

In Dragon Age, you pressed a button and watched an attack happen just like you would in a turn-based RPG. It's not as if pressing a button warranted immediate actions like in Fable or Mass Effect or X-Men Legends or any other Action-RPG. I guess Gaider means that DA was an Action-RPG in that you could move the character around, but really, he's just selling the game.

People are worried that DA2 will be an RPG so Gaider says "DA was an Action-RPG too" in a transparent effort to lessen fears.

To those of us not on the kool-aid, Dragon Age Origins was not an Action-RPG regardless of what Bioware reps want to call it.

An orange isn't an apple no matter how many times your favorite person tells you it is and you can easily see that for yourself without some anonymous dude on a message board telling you that.


Now, whether DA2 is or isn't an Action-RPG remains to be seen but rest assured Gaider and the other Bioware reps here recognize that "Action-RPG" is a buzzword that carries connotations that they will be making an effort to do away with.


It's all marketing, guys.

Quoted for truth.

[Sarevok Anchev]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ME2 had character development? I must have missed that part.

I meant the Character-class-Development.
And i think the words "...the almost redundant character development in ME2."
is a little less ironic then your statement ^^

[Morroian]

Kolos2 wrote...

aint it interesting how Bioware started to jungle with sub genres to justify the policy change ?
Gaider already stated that the 5 year development cycle (DA.O) aint profitable, so the change might be logical (action rpgs do take less time to develop since thy aint that complex)

What change? Like I said before if DA2 is an 'action rpg' then DAO was as well. If its just marketing well big deal why do you care. And all this about BW deliberately labelling it an rpg for obscure reason just amount to conspiracy theories.

[Sarevok Anchev]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Sarevok Anchev wrote...
Um, I think the "fear of consolization" comes from the fear, that console-games have a different gameplay-style then typical Pc-Games.
The difference in DA:O between Pc and Console-version shows this clearly...
Now in the 09/10 Gamestar Preview of DA2 they said, that the Strategic-Camera will NOT be included + the Controls were more Gamepad-oriented(=direct Action controls like in ME2) + less Character-Development(again: ME2-style);
they said it would seem like Mass Effect 2 in that regards.

Could you clarify what specifically you mean by "direct action controls" and "less character development"? Because the way I understand them, neither of those descriptions fits the demo I played at Gamescom.

Well the source of my informations is the Gamestar-magazine, who had a big Preview(= they could test the Now-Version exclusively).
If you really tested the game at Gamescom with Mousecontrols(= Point&Click style) then this also doesnt fit with the experience of 1 other Gamescom visitor, who was angry about the "direct-controls" and posted it in another topic(dont remember where atm).
"direct action controls"= either using WASD+Hotkeys or a Gamepad for controlling one character directly, instead of giving him and others indirect commands by clicking with a Mouse-cursor.
(note: i didnt state if you also attack like in Gothic/Oblivion, because noone said that directly, so didnt I).
"Less Character Development": I referred to a article on the Gamestar-Homepage, where they gave their thought on the "Mass-Effection" of Dragon Age, by making the Gameplay more streamlined.
This includes ofc linear Levels, but also a more streamlined Character(class)-Development.
A Dev stated, that you wil have less talents and spells in DA2, but they will be upgradable and will change somehow in their effect. Well, you could be negative and interpret this as ME2 Skills (they were less then in ME1 and you could upgrade them into a different version *g).

[Aratham Darksight]

Sarevok Anchev wrote...

Well the source of my informations is the Gamestar-magazine, who had a big Preview(= they could test the Now-Version exclusively).
If you really tested the game at Gamescom with Mousecontrols(= Point&Click style) then this also doesnt fit with the experience of 1 other Gamescom visitor, who was angry about the "direct-controls" and posted it in another topic(dont remember where atm).
"direct action controls"= either using WASD+Hotkeys or a Gamepad for controlling one character directly, instead of giving him and others indirect commands by clicking with a Mouse-cursor.
(note: i didnt state if you also attack like in Gothic/Oblivion, because noone said that directly, so didnt I).
"Less Character Development": I referred to a article on the Gamestar-Homepage, where they gave their thought on the "Mass-Effection" of Dragon Age, by making the Gameplay more streamlined.
This includes ofc linear Levels, but also a more streamlined Character(class)-Development.
A Dev stated, that you wil have less talents and spells in DA2, but they will be upgradable and will change somehow in their effect. Well, you could be negative and interpret this as ME2 Skills (they were less then in ME1 and you could upgrade them into a different version *g).

Well, you can definitely use point&click controls to move. If you're too impatient to pause like I was, you can use them to accidnetally click behind your intended target and attempt to jog across the battlefield, through a gang of Hurlocks. Don't know why anyone wouldn think you can't.

As for talents, if they were reduced in number, then it wasn't by a large amount. Certainly not to the point of 6+1 per class. The issue real with ME2 wasn't so much the raw number of abilities (if you count them, there were actually more in the game than ME1), but that each class was restricted to a small subset of them. The DA system by its nature doesn't prescribe that a Rogue can only have this half of dual-wielding abilities and a Warrior only the other half.

[Sarevok Anchev]

@Aratham Darksight:

... it seems that Bioware disabled the free-camera in the Pre-Gamescon version of DA2.

As long as Bioware doesnt streamline the Character-development-system i dont see a reason, why DA2 would become more of an "Action-RPG" than DA:O already was

[Aratham Darksight]

Sarevok Anchev wrote...

@Aratham Darksight:
... it seems that Bioware disabled the free-camera in the Pre-Gamescon version of DA2.
As long as Bioware doesnt streamline the Character-development-system i dont see a reason, why DA2 would become more of an "Action-RPG" than DA:O already was

They did indeed do that. It was kind of a pain for point&click movement and my current biggest concern about DA2 is how it's going to work when re-implemented. This did not render point&click controls unuseable, however.

[Sarevok Anchev]

lol! A real pain in the a55 to play that, im certain ^^

I think i read, that it will be almost(!) the same as in DA:O.

Well, lets hope for the best

[Lyssistr]

It's pretty clear DA2 is marketed differently to DAO and is targeted at a different audience.

Those of us that played DAO strictly for the "return to the roots/spiritual successor to BG", should thank Bioware for DAO & move on.

I was waiting for combat vids, but after seeing Bio founders themselves call it an aRPG, it becomes more evident what people will see in those vids.

I'm not too keen anymore for DA2 but truth be told, they never said the whole series is going to be a "return to their roots". At least they're being honest, labeling it an aRPG instead of trying to scam us for a quick dollar, and this is something I appreciate.

Maybe in 2020 Bioware makes another game in their "roots" style, or even a good indie developer pops up, like it happened with the hack&slash genre, where runic made Torchlight. I do believe there are enough people wanting "old school", so this is bound to happen.

DA2 sales will probably be good, because it is going to be a good game, even if it is not the type of game many of us are looking forward to. So I'd suggest people either get DA2 for what it will be or skip it altogether like I will.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 27 août 2010 - 03:55 .

[DPB]

Lyssistr wrote...

It's pretty clear DA2 is marketed differently to DAO and is targeted at a different audience.

Those of us that played DAO strictly for the "return to the roots/spiritual successor to BG", should thank Bioware for DAO & move on.

Uh, it was marketed like this. The whole 'spiritual successor' thing was given much less focus after 2008. I don't know whether you read the forums before DAO was released, but the aspect that was probably most complained about was the marketing - it quite often wasn't representative of the game itself and many people didn't like that it was targeted at another audience.

Modifié par dbankier, 27 août 2010 - 04:11 .

[Nighteye2]

TM13h wrote...

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.

You are missing the point here. Sure, there are always elitists or fanboys or whatever term you want to use. What you have to understand here is that there are systems with individual strengths and weaknesses and thus different expectations from their users that you are not taking into consideration.

Consoles are considerably weaker when it comes to fast-paced and/or complex games like FPS. This is the reason why PC vs. Xbox 360 wars do not work, as was made clear by Microsoft recently. Maybe the more complex the game, the less it will work well with a joypad. To give an extreme example: Try imagining a flight sim like Falcon 4.0 on a console. Or something more action-oriented like TIE-Fighter.

On the other hand, consoles are made for games that only work subpar on the PC. I cannot imagine to play something like smash Bros on a keyboard, for example. Another example are splitscreen multiplayer games that work better on consoles, even more so if there are more than two people playing. So when I want to play something that is more the "load up and enjoy" type of game, I switch on a console. If I want a more complex game, I will likely choose a PC game.

With these differences come different expectations. The comparison between the original Baldur's Gate games for the PC and those spin-offs for the Xbox is unfair as both games have their strengths. One is for fast fun, especially in the co-op mode, comparable to a nice action movie; the other game is for the story, the characters and such, more like an Orson Wells movie.

To conclude this post: What you SEEM to be doing with DA2 and what you clearly did with Mass Effect 2 is combining these to different types of games into one mishmash. From a PC gamer point of view this looks like making the game more shallow, less complex and thus more like console-type RPGs. But if I want to play a less complex RPG there are always certain flashy jRPGs or actioners like the aforementioned Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance titles. RPGs will probably never get more complex on consoles than DAO. Many PC gamers feel that there were already concessions to consoles in DAO like the more action-oriented gameplay or overall linear structure compared to, say, e.g. Planescape: Torment. I have yet to understand why you seem to go the ME2 route and lean even closer to console games with DA2. You should at least be honest enough to say that you think there is not big enough a market for a multi-million dollar project to be profitable on the PC alone so you try to make it work on consoles, too, with said concessions. Instead you blame people's assumptions on elitist ranting.

QFT

PC games should play as PC games, not as console ports.

[AlanC9]

Sarevok Anchev wrote...

lol! A real pain in the a55 to play that, im certain ^^
I think i read, that it will be almost(!) the same as in DA:O.
Well, lets hope for the best

I hope the camera's different, actually. I just replayed the final battle and I was fighting the camera. A lot. Zooming out isn't very effective on a map with lots of height changes, and without a free camera I had to go to first-preson view a bunch just to maintain situational awareness.

A camera that works the way Laidlaw said the DA2 camera will work would have been much better.

[In Exile]

Morroian wrote...
The successor to Baldurs Gate was said only for DAO not the succeeding games.

Also, DA:O is nothing like BG. For one, BG was much more strategical (spell management, health managment) than tactical, entirely unlike DA:O. I could go on, but the whole "like BG" meme is silly, especially i) given how unlike BG DA actually is and ii) given how the BG crowd hated the direction of DA to begin with on the old forum.

[Lyssistr]

In Exile wrote...

Morroian wrote...
The successor to Baldurs Gate was said only for DAO not the succeeding games.

Also, DA:O is nothing like BG. For one, BG was much more strategical (spell management, health managment) than tactical, entirely unlike DA:O. I could go on, but the whole "like BG" meme is silly, especially i) given how unlike BG DA actually is and ii) given how the BG crowd hated the direction of DA to begin with on the old forum.

DAO is still the closest thing to BG from non-indie games.

[Vandrayke]

In Exile wrote...

Morroian wrote...
The successor to Baldurs Gate was said only for DAO not the succeeding games.

Also, DA:O is nothing like BG. For one, BG was much more strategical (spell management, health managment) than tactical, entirely unlike DA:O. I could go on, but the whole "like BG" meme is silly, especially i) given how unlike BG DA actually is and ii) given how the BG crowd hated the direction of DA to begin with on the old forum.

yeah with all the people talking about tactics, I found the tactics system in DA:O to be far better than the BG one.  And it isn't close.  

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Dungeon Siege is a great litmus test.  How familair are you with Dungeon Siege?

A little. I don't own the game, but I did research when you mentioned it way back before on the old Bioware boards when we talked about whether or not KoTOR was an action RPG from a mechanic standpoint. I used to think that it was, but you convinced me regarding your definition.

But, the basic combat mechanic was entirely passive (and I mean entirely - you didn't actually have to do anything, and all of your characters would select targets and fight on their own), and the only input you could give was to select a different target (if you didn't like the one that character had chosen), change which spell he was casting (which the magic system ensured you would almost never want to do), or switch between combat skills (which you'd only do if you were trying to game the levelling mechanic).

If someone views Dungeon Siege as an action-RPG, then DAO could also credibly be.  If someone thinks Dungeon Siege isn't an action-RPG, then there's no way DAO could be.

I think that's a fair point.

[Deviija]

Indeed, it is a lot of marketing gymnastics to try and sell a game to as many audiences as possible. They are buzzwords for selling a product more than they are strict delineations of genres. I wouldn't consider Fable 3 an action-RPG, so much as a Sim Life Simulator/RTS/RPG... but there you are. Action-RPG is a buzzword that generates imagery for a certain type of game, especially to a certain type of demographic in this instant-gratification market, and that's all I think they are trying to capitalize on.

[In Exile]

Lyssistr wrote...
DAO is still the closest thing to BG from non-indie games.

Well, sure, but that's like how Bioware introduced Mass Effect as the spiritual successor of KoTOR. Just what Bioware thinks the spirit of games are might not be the same as gamers.

For example, the MMO-like combat, the focus on tactics versus strategy, the inventory system, the lack of a personal plot - all of these things to me set DA apart from BG. I personally didn't like BG/BGII very much because of how dated the interface felt and how (personally) lacking the party was in character, but DA and BG are nothing alike.

Personally, to me it's like calling PST the spiritual succesor of IWD because both happen to be RPGs. Yes, there is a paucity of RPGs like the early 2000s, but that does not mean DA is anything like BG.

If anything, that was the unfair marketing Bioware pulled at first.

[In Exile]

Deviija wrote...
 Action-RPG is a buzzword that generates imagery for a certain type of game, especially to a certain type of demographic in this instant-gratification market, and that's all I think they are trying to capitalize on.

Instant gratification? How is DA:O not instant gratification? 

[Vandrayke]

Deviija wrote...
 Action-RPG is a buzzword that generates imagery for a certain type of game 

It used to for me, like when Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance came out.  But now I think that technology and experience have us at a point where action doesn't have to come at the expense of tactical depth.  And games are to the point where a lot of them combine different elements of each other.  So really I guess I don't care about genre categories as much as I used to.