645 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Having  VO's does not = Roleplaying   Thats prolly the most rediculous statement I think I've ever seen made.. Though from your posts you seem like the epitome of the new target audience Bioware is going for anyway.

I appreciate that for some people, roleplaying is the intimate mental experience you have when you play the game. For me, roleplaying is about being able to create a character and then having the world react to that. When you're a silent and passive puppet, the world is not very reactive. The cost of freedom is reactivity, and I value reactivity more than freedom.

AlanC9 wrote...
Without interfering with your role-playing,
right? Your PC would be trying to min-max his team in order to, um, not
die.

It would be more an issue of: I have to pick between
the two people that can cause others to explode with their mind and the
person that slowly shoots arrows. Fireballs > arrows.

So "tactical" as used here
excludes builds, equipment, and party composition? Those are strategy?
Technically, I suppose we should be talking about operational level.

I think strategy has to be with preparation. I think tactics has to do with the minutae of orders in combat. In BG II, for example, I felt preparation for battle, party composition, spell buffs and spell management was far more important than the specific things you did in battle; you could win with different tactics, but poor strategy meant death. So BG is strategical; tactical is just the application per battle. DA:O had a strategic element, far better than ME2, but the tactical element was poor (IMO) in both games.

[Raxxman]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Indeed. The same game that is completely different from DA1 and more similiar to ME2. And we all know how much of "RPG" ME2 was...

Yes, we do. It was an RPG

No it wasn't, but neither was ME1.

How do you define an RPG? Because ME1 and ME2 both tick enough boxes in my opinion. ME2 fewer boxes, with an over reliance on the shooter aspect. But IMO DA:O has an over reliance on the RTS combat aspect. So we going to reclassify DA:O an RTS now? 

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...
I'm still trying to figure out how any of this drivel pertained to my argument. Personally i don't care if you brought a rogue or not. In fact if you don't care about the contents of chests then your group is likely better off without one. Big deal.

Your drivel happened to bring up a rogue. So I returned the favour.

You also just said playing to win... when referencing a RPG and a pseudo RPG. Uhhh.. hrm. I didn't know this was madden 11 or mlb sk10 or some ****.

It's a video game. Do you set out to lose? Wtf is that ****? Come up with new and creative ways to get killed by an Ogre? The point of playing a game is to beat it.

You're ridiculous bro, i mean jesus ****ing christ. You were so hard-up about roleplay and such and then make a statement like.. PLAY TO WIN. CHYEAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I thought RPGs were about the story and stuff yo, i mean like isn't that what you care about or is it like.. pwning noobs and playing to win?

If you tried to think (hard, I know) you would shockingly find out that there is absolutely no contradiction between story and winning. I actually referenced gameplay vs. story segregation for you. Twice now.

When an ogre can 1hit KO you like Cailan, we can talk about the story and the gameplay being the same thing. Since I can apparently have a high dragon chew on my tank for a minute without him so much as getting a broken bone, story and gameplay are two entirely different things.

Being efficient in crushing your opposition is role playing. Taking Morrigan and her nuke-level magic versus Leliana is role-playing.

I was also amused how you completely dodged the whole point about games like these being balanced exclusively around min/maxing and metagayming. Whats up with that bro? Oh wait i know, if you play to win then hellz yeah it should be balanced around min/maxing and roleplaying be damned amirite broskie?

I didn't dodge it, because it was never my point. I don't care whether or not the game is balanced. I am only pointing out that the game isn't tactical because it is very simple to exploit. That's my definition of tactical.

IF DA:O was to be tactical, it would have to involve challange. Since a very simple strategy makes the tactic irrelevant beyond rinse, lather and repeat, it isn't tactical.

All this BS started when you wanted to claim DA is tactical. Well, tough. You're wrong. Everything else is you just trying to be funny and failing. Right, broskie?

Modifié par In Exile, 28 août 2010 - 08:25 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Merced256 wrote...
You also just said playing to win... when referencing a RPG and a pseudo RPG. Uhhh.. hrm. I didn't know this was madden 11 or mlb sk10 or some ****. You're ridiculous bro, i mean jesus ****ing christ. You were so hard-up about roleplay and such and then make a statement like.. PLAY TO WIN. CHYEAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I thought RPGs were about the story and stuff yo, i mean like isn't that what you care about or is it like.. pwning noobs and playing to win?

Are you trying to not be taken seriously? You hear "you play games to beat them", and all of the sudden, he's apparently a twelve year old teabagging in a Halo mutiplayer match?

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I thought the battles took excessively long, with too much downtime waiting for orders to be carried out. It's not surprising given my back ground with fighting/melee type games. I only got into rpg's much later.

Have you ever seen medieval combat?  It was slow.

An excellent cinematic representation of medieval combat is the 1981 film Excalibur.  And that's eactly how DAO combat felt.  And it was great.

Everyone should have to play Wizard's Crown before they comment on how RPG combat should feel.

Excalibur is perhaps not the best example to present given how ever so slightly stylised that movie is, after all look what else the kingihts get up to whilst still wearing full plate

Cinematic representations of sword combat have always been mixed, not least with films where the choreography is not well done. Many celluloid sword fights over the years are plainly of the variety where the actors/stunt actors etc are aiming for the other guys sword, rather than the body.

[Faust1979]

Kordaris wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Excalibur is perhaps not the best example to present given how ever so slightly stylised that movie is, after all look what else the kingihts get up to whilst still wearing full plate

There was a cartoon some time ago about Knights of the Round Table, that had a knight in full plate swimming under the river to avoid capture

I remember a cartoon in the mid 80s where football players became like knights of the round table or something like that.  Is that the one you are talking about?

[Ninja Mage]

If they put assault rifles in dragon age I will be so pissed

[Faust1979]

Ninja Mage wrote...

If they put assault rifles in dragon age I will be so pissed

what about crossbow machine guns?

[Bryy_Miller]

Faust1979 wrote...

Ninja Mage wrote...

If they put assault rifles in dragon age I will be so pissed

what about crossbow machine guns?

Or ammo clips? Because everyone knows that adding limited ammo to a system that before was unlimited is dumbing down gameplay.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
I think strategy has to be with preparation. I think tactics has to do with the minutae of orders in combat. In BG II, for example, I felt preparation for battle, party composition, spell buffs and spell management was far more important than the specific things you did in battle; you could win with different tactics, but poor strategy meant death. So BG is strategical; tactical is just the application per battle. DA:O had a strategic element, far better than ME2, but the tactical element was poor (IMO) in both games. 

I  pretty much agree with that. Note, however, that this is not how a lot of people are using the terms. It's very common to hear someone talking about BG being very tactical but actually meaning that you need to set up your spell loadouts and buffs.

[Nerevar-as]

Faust1979 wrote...

Ninja Mage wrote...

If they put assault rifles in dragon age I will be so pissed

what about crossbow machine guns?

I´ve already seen several in mediaval settings. Could work as a rapid fire mode skill in the
weapon bonus.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Raxxman wrote...

How do you define an RPG?

They both lacked roleplaying, largely as a result of the dialogue wheel and the PC's pre-written personality.

ME2 implements the wheel better than ME1 does, but gives away those gains with the abysmal interupt system, so neither is an RPG.

In principle, RPGs should also have stat-driven combat, but I could that as secondary to the ability to roleplay, and ME and ME2 didn't have it.

What type of combat they have doesn't matter.  You could have a top-flight RPG shooter, but ME isn't it.  I don't think abilities, or levels, or any of the "RPG elements" people keep talking about matter.  It's the roleplaying that matters.

[TMZuk]

Theagg wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I thought the battles took excessively long, with too much downtime waiting for orders to be carried out. It's not surprising given my back ground with fighting/melee type games. I only got into rpg's much later.

Have you ever seen medieval combat?  It was slow.

An excellent cinematic representation of medieval combat is the 1981 film Excalibur.  And that's eactly how DAO combat felt.  And it was great.

Everyone should have to play Wizard's Crown before they comment on how RPG combat should feel.

Excalibur is perhaps not the best example to present given how ever so slightly stylised that movie is, after all look what else the kingihts get up to whilst still wearing full plate

Cinematic representations of sword combat have always been mixed, not least with films where the choreography is not well done. Many celluloid sword fights over the years are plainly of the variety where the actors/stunt actors etc are aiming for the other guys sword, rather than the body.

There's not been a film ever, that has depicted medival swordfights in a realistic manner, Excalibur least of all. Go to YouTube, and search: "Medieval longsword", "Lichtenauer","Talhoffer" or "Gladiatores" (not gladiators.)  That's medieval swordfighting.

This is a game, however, and it is fantasy, not the middleages of Europe, so stop making silly comparisons.

That being said, all I hear about DA2 is  about responsive combat, action, immidiate reactions and similar phrases. So obviously it's going to be even more combat heavy than DA:O. Thus, an action RPG. Hardly the spiritual successor of  BG and BG2. Twenty-five to thirty hours of gameplay? Yes, well, I'll pick it up when the price has gone down to 15 $ or something like that. It's all so bloody dissapointing.

Modifié par TMZuk, 29 août 2010 - 11:49 .

[Faust1979]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Raxxman wrote...

How do you define an RPG?

They both lacked roleplaying, largely as a result of the dialogue wheel and the PC's pre-written personality.

ME2 implements the wheel better than ME1 does, but gives away those gains with the abysmal interupt system, so neither is an RPG.

In principle, RPGs should also have stat-driven combat, but I could that as secondary to the ability to roleplay, and ME and ME2 didn't have it.

What type of combat they have doesn't matter.  You could have a top-flight RPG shooter, but ME isn't it.  I don't think abilities, or levels, or any of the "RPG elements" people keep talking about matter.  It's the roleplaying that matters.

both Mass Effect games have stat based combat. You get better with it, you're not leveling up for no reason also your abilities get better the more you level up so you're wrong. There are several roleplaying games that have pre written personalities. Also you could determine how the character acted and how he re acted so yes both Mass Effect games are very much RPG.

[Poleaxe]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

relhart wrote...

Why would he call it anything else? It would be a blatant lie to call it otherwise.

At least they're being honest about their slide into me-too, action-gaming mediocrity.  DA:O was a proper cRPG.  DA2 will not follow suite, the best efforts of the writers notwithstanding.  Spend or withhold your gaming dollars accordingly, and that includes waiting for DA2 to show up on the discount rack.  

For me its just disappointing. They hyped DA1 as a spiritial sucessor to BG. Got all the old timers hyped that they were returning to their roots and throwing us a bone, and it lasted all of 1 game in the series. Bioware has tried action rpg's before, I shudder to imagine the Dragon Age universe turned into a ME2/Jade Empire type of scenario since JE was their weakest game to date imo.

You know, I use to think this also. Tried a couple times to get into it on console and failed.  However, I picked it up a couple months ago on steam and loved it. I couldn't stop playing. The funny thing is that I played DA, ME2, and FO3 all on console so maybe I just didn't have the hang of the console thing back then.

At any rate I suggest you give it another shot, because man is it good.

[2papercuts]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Ninja Mage wrote...

If they put assault rifles in dragon age I will be so pissed

what about crossbow machine guns?

Or ammo clips? Because everyone knows that adding limited ammo to a system that before was unlimited is dumbing down gameplay.

i hope this happpens so now there are more explosion there awesome

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I appreciate that for some people, roleplaying is the intimate mental experience you have when you play the game. For me, roleplaying is about being able to create a character and then having the world react to that. When you're a silent and passive puppet, the world is not very reactive.

But to what extent did you create Shepard?  Any?  Was there any aspect of Shepard that was yours that you didn't need to amend to suit the game's presentation of his behaviour?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Faust1979 wrote...

both Mass Effect games have stat based combat.

I didn't claim they didn't (though ME's was more stat-based than ME2's because it even had stat-driven aiming).

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

I appreciate that for some people, roleplaying is the intimate mental experience you have when you play the game. For me, roleplaying is about being able to create a character and then having the world react to that. When you're a silent and passive puppet, the world is not very reactive. The cost of freedom is reactivity, and I value reactivity more than freedom.

That's a matter of having the character react to the world. Not a matter of having the world react to the character.

It's something I can accomplish on my own as the character I'm roleplaying. As such, its appeal is limited.

Modifié par Marionetten, 29 août 2010 - 02:04 .

[Mehow_pwn]

Well Mass effect 2 is then what I would call... Light action RPG or something betwen Light and normal

As for mass effect 1 it was defeintly an Rpg ,but just that it didn't have as good combat as the second one. Well in my opinion it didn't feel as pointless as I find killing big or small mobs constatly/endlessly really boaring..

And dragon age 2 seems to be taking that direction.. which really sucks ,but it will be playable.

Modifié par Mehow_pwn, 29 août 2010 - 02:28 .

[condiments1]

slimgrin wrote...

After reading numerous posts on the subject, I'm going to boldly state that any rpg whose gameplay relies on the player's reflexive skill and fine motor controls should properly be called an action rpg. I don't mean that disparagingly. ME1 and ME2, by my definition, are action rpg's. So are Oblivion, Fallout 3, Sacred 2, Diablo, The Witcher, Divine Divinity, Two Worlds, Ego Draconis, etc.. (note that I've made no comment as to the quality of these games. That's a separate issue).

Most may disagree, but I don't think the title of rpg bestows anything special on a game any more than the word 'fine' before 'art' validates an oil painting over an illustration for a magazine.

Well Devil May Cry 3 is another pretty sweet RPG because I can pick my class and upgrade my skills, and abilities by spending points accrued through slaying monsters.

Probably best action RPG ever made.

Modifié par condiments1, 29 août 2010 - 03:02 .