925 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandrayke]

MortalEngines wrote...


That's not it though, the fact is that RPGs aren't that intelligent, to be truthful in most rpgs you don't have to use your brain much (unless you purposefully limit yourself for challenge sake)

Totally true.  I mean there are some exceptions but for the most part you just run around and kill stuff over and over until your character gets better.  Then you put the inventory item with the biggest numbers into your "equip" slot and sell the rest of the items.  Rinse and repeat.  

[Vandrayke]

What I like the most about RPGs is that they have a little of a lot of different stuff in them. So if I get bored killing stuff, I can talk to my party or go exploring or figure out how to improve my character or something. Also I obviously like the roleplaying aspect. But I don't think any of those elements is too challenging. They can be VERY entertaining, though.

[Sergius64]

Vandrayke wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...


That's not it though, the fact is that RPGs aren't that intelligent, to be truthful in most rpgs you don't have to use your brain much (unless you purposefully limit yourself for challenge sake)

Totally true.  I mean there are some exceptions but for the most part you just run around and kill stuff over and over until your character gets better.  Then you put the inventory item with the biggest numbers into your "equip" slot and sell the rest of the items.  Rinse and repeat.  

Which one is more difficult, a shooter with cover system and some rpg elements like ME2 or a complex open rpg that requires you to carefully choose areas to "kill stuff at", manage your resources and optimise your character's powers like Might and Magic VII?

[ImoenBaby]

All I want is more great Bioware storytelling, supported by improved gameplay, while exploring more of Thedas. That's all.  (And non-pjs mage robes, if anyone's listening. Bethany's chainmail = A+, although two parts are clearly DD.) 

If Bioware makes a rockin sequel and pulls in a larger audience, I will be incredibly happy, and you know what? I'm betting on being very happy. Then again, I'm basing my bet on the track record, so I'm just a little wee biased here. I know, I know: how could someone trust a company that tries to improve itself with each outing, including - god forbid - streamlining our clunky backpacks? Or hiring top-notch voice talent for your character (but eliminating our beloved flat and affectless interaction?) Or setting dialogue choices on a wheelie instead of bullet points...the horror... 

[Mike2640]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

Vicious wrote...

After reading this thread, I see

A few people who like Bioware's current direction and want their future games to be the same.

A few people who dislike Bioware's current direction and want their future games to be more like their older, first-gen games.


and a WHOLE LOT OF pompous holier than thou RPG 'purists' who compare Bioware's recent offerings to blockbuster games, like it's a BAD thing, completely ignoring anything that contradicts their nerd raging, and berating anyone who disagrees with them.

Because being an old school RPG fan somehow makes them more 'special' than a kid who plays Gears of War.

Pathetic.

These forums have clearly gone to the Americans.

I think of it more like this:

I like Mass Effect.  I like Dragon Age.  I like Red Dead Redemption.  I like Call of Duty.  I like Halo.

What I do NOT like is when someone suggests Dragon Age should play more like Halo or Call of Duty.

It's kind of like if I decided to go play tennis with a buddy.  But when we get to the tennis courts, he sees a basketball net and says, "hey, instead of playing tennis, let's play basketball", even though I had my heart set on tennis.  Now, I like basketball. Love it, even.  But not when I'm in the mood to play tennis.

This is no different.

If I wanted a more action-game fix, I'd play Halo.  I own that game, anyway.  And I'm pretty sure that action fix will never go unfulfilled since I'm pretty sure Bungie will continue to make games.  But if I want an RPG fix, that WILL go unfulfilled if BioWare starts listening to people who suggest that franchises like Dragon Age should cut out a lot of what made them RPG staples, and streamline them into more of a Halo/Gears of War direction.

This right here. Everything this guy said. Well done sire.

[Sergius64]

ImoenBaby wrote...

All I want is more great Bioware storytelling, supported by improved gameplay, while exploring more of Thedas. That's all.  (And non-pjs mage robes, if anyone's listening. Bethany's chainmail = A+, although two parts are clearly DD.) 

If Bioware makes a rockin sequel and pulls in a larger audience, I will be incredibly happy, and you know what? I'm betting on being very happy. Then again, I'm basing my bet on the track record, so I'm just a little wee biased here. I know, I know: how could someone trust a company that tries to improve itself with each outing, including - god forbid - streamlining our clunky backpacks? Or hiring top-notch voice talent for your character (but eliminating our beloved flat and affectless interaction?) Or setting dialogue choices on a wheelie instead of bullet points...the horror... 

I'm not going to deny that great Storytelling is an integral part of the game turning out well. I actually enjoyed ME2 for example, it was a better Star Wars type movie then actual Star Wars movies, the issue is that ME1's story was just as good while actually having better RPG elements. The inventory was clunky in ME1 because it was designed for damn consoles with their inability to drag and drop inventory pieces easily. Total removal of inventory in ME2 was a poor solution to the problem as it took out the "oooo lookie at what I found" factor that makes Diablo games so popular for example. Instead the inventory system was partially replaced by the planet scanning nonesense since that was the new "money" to buy upgrades with. The dumbing down of experience/leveling up system was just poor. Did people really had that much trouble figuring out the already overly simplistic model in ME1?

I can see Bioware is trying to improve stuff, but to me it seems that they keep trying by kinda shooting in the dark. Hmmm, that feature didn't turn out too well, let's try another crappy feature instead, etc. To me the best game is still Baldur's Gate II because it got everything just right. Why did they "improve" on it with DA with its hours long Deep Roads grind and with ME2 with its joke of an leveling system and horrible resource gathering minigame?

Modifié par Sergius64, 28 août 2010 - 06:34 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Mass Effect 2 did have better combat, and graphics you cant deny that.



However its not a real improvement since it just dumped everything out the window instead of trying to repair it.

Really though a voiced PC takes away from the game alot, I want to play a charachter not watch some interactive movie, where some monotone emotional brick is playacting.

[MortalEngines]

Sergius64 wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...


That's not it though, the fact is that RPGs aren't that intelligent, to be truthful in most rpgs you don't have to use your brain much (unless you purposefully limit yourself for challenge sake)

Totally true.  I mean there are some exceptions but for the most part you just run around and kill stuff over and over until your character gets better.  Then you put the inventory item with the biggest numbers into your "equip" slot and sell the rest of the items.  Rinse and repeat.  

Which one is more difficult, a shooter with cover system and some rpg elements like ME2 or a complex open rpg that requires you to carefully choose areas to "kill stuff at", manage your resources and optimise your character's powers like Might and Magic VII?

Well actually I was largely agree with what you said, my only problem is you said:

Sergius64 wrote...
 Just as there are plenty of people who hate Harry Potter for being too simple compared to say... The Malazan Book of the Fallen. Just as there are plenty of people who hate dumb action movies for being to simple when compared to intelligent movies such as say... Inception.'

Which basically in my eyes saying that RPGs are more intelligent/require more skill than others games. Which I think its entirely untrue, I don't understand why people think RPGs are incredibly challenging and 'hardcore' compared to say FPS. Nothing is extremely difficult about a RPG, even the skill trees don't require extreme thought (unless you're playing an MMORPG but's that a completely different ball park).

Don't put down FPS difficulty just because you have a cover system. What about the pause and click system in RPGs? Or even the Heal system? 

FPS likes ME and Call of Duty may be easy but I remember having a hell of a time trying to complete Killzone 2. 

It may be different for everyone but I find one of the hardest genres to play is Survival Horrors, the lack of sufficient ammo against huge hordes of 'monsters', together with puzzles that can take up to 2 hours to complete makes them take FOREVER to complete. I mean I completed DA in about a week or so, I completed Resident evil Code Veronica in a 4 months.

[MortalEngines]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...
BTW: What's so good about the 21st century, anyway? Crappy remakes?

WIN! I support this comment 100% mate.

Also I might be an 'older' gamer but I appreciate both new and old games, the age is no matter to me, just the content. I have a nephew who has only just picked up games and he is really into RPGs at the moment (he's a DA fan) but he also digs NWN despite the bad graphics.

[nhsk]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Mass Effect 2 did have better combat, and graphics you cant deny that.

However its not a real improvement since it just dumped everything out the window instead of trying to repair it.
Really though a voiced PC takes away from the game alot, I want to play a charachter not watch some interactive movie, where some monotone emotional brick is playacting.

Eh yes I can, combat in the ME series is just another shooter, nothing to do with RPG. Fine in ME, but it's not better.

[Sergius64]

MortalEngines wrote...

Which basically in my eyes saying
that RPGs are more intelligent/require more skill than others games.
Which I think its entirely untrue, I don't understand why people think
RPGs are incredibly challenging and 'hardcore' compared to say FPS.
Nothing is extremely difficult about a RPG, even the skill trees don't
require extreme thought (unless you're playing an MMORPG but's that a
completely different ball park).

Don't put down FPS difficulty
just because you have a cover system. What about the pause and click
system in RPGs? Or even the Heal system? 

FPS likes ME and Call of Duty may be easy but I remember having a hell of a time trying to complete Killzone 2. 

It
may be different for everyone but I find one of the hardest genres to
play is Survival Horrors, the lack of sufficient ammo against huge
hordes of 'monsters', together with puzzles that can take up to 2 hours
to complete makes them take FOREVER to complete. I mean I completed DA
in about a week or so, I completed Resident evil Code Veronica in a 4
months.

Well, FPS generally challenge your reflexes, hand-to-eye coordination... and what? Spatial Awareness maybe?

Meanwhile a good party RPG challanges ability to plan development, analyse attributes, equipment and situations numerically, micromanaging your characters and being able to balance risk/reward by choosing the right areas to try to advance your characters in.

Now aside from the world of professional sports, the skills in the second group are more valued out there in the real world. Maybe that doesn't mean that the people with the skills in the second group are more intelligent, but it does mean they have some sort of an advantage doesn't it?

Survival Horrors are interesting as they add stuff like resource management, fight or flight reflex and puzzle solving to the mix. But either way, just saying this game felt harder and took you longer then the other says that this game put a greater strain on your skills for that genre. In other words, it was either just a more difficult game or you're not that great at the skills that the game required. Anyway, some games can be very long and boring, for example there are many JRPGs that can take ages to complete due to gigantic amounts of GRIND that they contain.

[Estelindis]

There's very little I felt Mass Effect did better than Dragon Age, but the two main things are 1) a fully voiced main character who is addressed by his or her actual last name, and 2) the dialogue wheel.  Since both of these are being added to Dragon Age 2, I am *extremely* optimistic.  (I'll really miss the origin stories, though.  And Alistair.  Sigh.)

[AlanC9]

Sergius64 wrote...

Well, FPS generally challenge your reflexes, hand-to-eye coordination... and what? Spatial Awareness maybe?

In MP, anyway. Shooter SP campaigns typically try to present things so the player knows what's going on. Getting killed is much more frustrating when you don't know who killed you or how.

Now aside from the world of professional sports, the skills in the second group are more valued out there in the real world. Maybe that doesn't mean that the people with the skills in the second group are more intelligent, but it does mean they have some sort of an advantage doesn't it?

The skills in the second group may be rarer. I've see otherwise intelligent people engage in preposterous RPG strategies. RPGs typically get around this by letting even a bad  (EDIT: should have said "unskilled") player beat them without too much difficulty.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 août 2010 - 07:16 .

[MortalEngines]

Sergius64 wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

Which basically in my eyes saying
that RPGs are more intelligent/require more skill than others games.
Which I think its entirely untrue, I don't understand why people think
RPGs are incredibly challenging and 'hardcore' compared to say FPS.
Nothing is extremely difficult about a RPG, even the skill trees don't
require extreme thought (unless you're playing an MMORPG but's that a
completely different ball park).

Don't put down FPS difficulty
just because you have a cover system. What about the pause and click
system in RPGs? Or even the Heal system? 

FPS likes ME and Call of Duty may be easy but I remember having a hell of a time trying to complete Killzone 2. 

It
may be different for everyone but I find one of the hardest genres to
play is Survival Horrors, the lack of sufficient ammo against huge
hordes of 'monsters', together with puzzles that can take up to 2 hours
to complete makes them take FOREVER to complete. I mean I completed DA
in about a week or so, I completed Resident evil Code Veronica in a 4
months.

Well, FPS generally challenge your reflexes, hand-to-eye coordination... and what? Spatial Awareness maybe?

Meanwhile a good party RPG challanges ability to plan development, analyse attributes, equipment and situations numerically, micromanaging your characters and being able to balance risk/reward by choosing the right areas to try to advance your characters in.

Now aside from the world of professional sports, the skills in the second group are more valued out there in the real world. Maybe that doesn't mean that the people with the skills in the second group are more intelligent, but it does mean they have some sort of an advantage doesn't it?

Survival Horrors are interesting as they add stuff like resource management, fight or flight reflex and puzzle solving to the mix. But either way, just saying this game felt harder and took you longer then the other says that this game put a greater strain on your skills for that genre. In other words, it was either just a more difficult game or you're not that great at the skills that the game required. Anyway, some games can be very long and boring, for example there are many JRPGs that can take ages to complete due to gigantic amounts of GRIND that they contain.

 I get your point, but if you're like me and you're a gamer that can pretty much play everything out there (though I admit I'm a bit sub-par at FPS), you can tell if an genre is a bit more difficult than another one. You only look at one side of the coin, RPGs do require micromanaging and risk/reward etc, but FPS can have the same thing as well, actually looking at it, FPS can be extremely similar to RPGS.

For instance there are many FPS out there that require you to control numerous team mates as well as taking a risk assessment of situations, find the right places to take cover (so you're not exposed) and handle hordes of soldiers that could be attacking you.

Also ammo management and seeing which weapon is better to use in certain situations (similar to inventory assessment). Even implementing tactics like flanking opponents. 

Now by FPS I'm not talking about ME here, but games like Killzone and Bioshock that really do require skills. Any good FPS can be just as complicated as a RPG.

The main difference between FPS and RPG is not the skill-required for them but their focus. FPS is focused on game mechanic, ai, and graphics. Where as RPG is more about Story, Characters and Immersion.

Also I'm a Survival Horror veteran, all the way back to the times of Clocktower and Silent Hill 1. But I always find good survival horror games challenging if I don't use the aid of a walkthrough (because they are designed to be difficult)

Modifié par MortalEngines, 28 août 2010 - 07:16 .

[TanithAeyrs]

Didn't really feel like reading 13 pages of thread for this so I'm probably repeating what has already been said. For what it's worth though, my thoughts.

I loved DA:O as it was, it was the first game that really rivalled BG2 in my overall enjoyment. I did enjoy both ME1 and ME2 but the RPG elements were not as deep, although still pretty good in their own right.

I was not fond of the dialog wheel in the ME games, partly because my character didn't always say what I thought she would - I understand that DA2 is trying to improve this by giving an idea of the emotion behind the statement, but still it's not what I prefer.

Combat - I don't really like FPS games that much. I confess to prefering tactical gameplay.  However, if DA2 streamlines combat to improve it for those that enjoy that kind of thing, fine, as long a I can still pause and plan my tactics it will work for me.

Voiced Hawke. I would really rather have an unvoiced PC and more dialog. ME cinematics are nice but its kind of like decorative touches on the icing of a cake, pretty but it doesn't really add much to my enjoyment. I can understand, if for lore reasons (elves are second class citizens and dwarves are not expected to hold titles in human lands) Hawke is resticted to being human. However, I do like to be able to choose what race I play in a fantasy setting (first experiencing DA:O as an elf gave me a far different perspective than someone who started with the human noble origin). Limiting race choice just so the PC can have a voice actor makes me sad.

Overall, I hope DA2 still retains more of the classic RPG elements than either of the ME games. I am a Bioware fan because they have great stories and superior RPG games, not because I want faster paced combat or voice acting.

Also had to add a note on difficulty, there should always be more than one solution to a quest or combat problem, but it should not necessarily be easy to figure out.  DA:O  and ME are no where near as difficult as the old BG games.  Even as a BG veteran I don't play on harder difficulties without some advanced planning, in DA:O hard isn't really too bad after you become familiar with the game mechanics.  Haven't played nightmare yet but I don't find it so intimidating that I won't try it at some point.  Haven't played the ME games as much but have the same feeling for them - just not as hard as the older games.   I hope DA2 challenges me to come up with effective tactics and to use my party members efficiently - I don't want to waltz through combat without a scratch.  On a side note I loved the injury system in DA:O, injury kits should just be harder to come by.

Modifié par TanithAeyrs, 28 août 2010 - 07:30 .

[slikster]

MortalEngines wrote...
Which I think its entirely untrue, I don't understand why people think RPGs are incredibly challenging and 'hardcore' compared to say FPS.

I don't know, why don't you explain to us all why there were multitudes of "This game is too hard!!!1!" threads when people were playing DA:O?  Maybe it wasn't for you or I, but for many it was.  It's distressing to those who enjoyed the kind of gameplay in DA:O to be potentially losing it, that anything "complex" may get stripped out of DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Mass Effect 2 did have better combat, and graphics you cant deny that.

I can most certainly deny that ME2 has better combat (either than ME1 or DAO).  I really dislike ME2's combat.

I do think ME2 is a better game, overall, than ME1, but it's not because of the combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Inarborat wrote...

Wait for reviews

Reviews tell us very little about a game.  I've read reviews of a game where I can't even tell what the basic gameplay mechanic is (specifically, it was a strategy game, and I couldn't tell from the review hether it was a real-time or turn-based strategy game)

[RosaAquafire]

My feelings on this ...



I don't like first person shooters, never have and never will. I suffer from dizzying motion sickness in first person view, but more importantly, I just find it dull and repetitive gameplay. I get overwhelmed by the quick action, my reaction time is slow, and once I finally get into the groove, it's really all the same bang bang bang/hack hack hack. To ME. I recognize that there are a lot of people out there who LOVE fpses and hack n slashers, and that's excellent for them. Like, really no sarcasm intended. I don't begrudge them that at all, I don't think I'm better than them, I don't think that I'm more intelligent or my tastes are more refined ... I just think that that my tastes are DIFFERENT and that's all there is to.



The issue is that there are SO MANY first person shooters these days, so many that they're taking over all of gaming. To those of us who just don't like the gameplay style, the amount of well-made games we can play and enjoy without shooting mans with guns are getting lower and lower every year as the japanese game market (which has its OWN issues) crashes, and more and more gaming companies try to "streamline" their games to match marketing trends.



I don't think that DA would be worse if it got into twitchy action territory ... I just think it would be like everything else out there.



Aren't there enough FPSes for people to play? I admit, I think there are a lot of problems with the traditional RPG model -- inventory management is truly terrible, for one, there's nothing more irritating than having less inventory space than time in a dungeon and having to debate what to throw away. But I take that bad with the good as part of the package. For those of us who like our nerdy long division games, there are REALLY not many out there, any more.



Is it so bad to think that we have a right to have ONE "tedious," "unexciting" tactical game with its own foibles and strengths, rather than there being one more action-y hackfest on the market for you to play? If you compare the games available to people who like chiefly tactics vs. people who like chiefly action ... really, is it too much to ask for this one?



I don't think I'm better than you. I just think I'm, at the moment, disadvantaged.

[Ninja Mage]

I hope they don't turn Dragon Age into Mass Effect...I really didnt like Mass Effect 2 that much

[Raxxman]

slikster wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...
Which I think its entirely untrue, I don't understand why people think RPGs are incredibly challenging and 'hardcore' compared to say FPS.

I don't know, why don't you explain to us all why there were multitudes of "This game is too hard!!!1!" threads when people were playing DA:O?  Maybe it wasn't for you or I, but for many it was.  It's distressing to those who enjoyed the kind of gameplay in DA:O to be potentially losing it, that anything "complex" may get stripped out of DA2.

Because in general people are bad at games.

Same people complain about Brutual on Starcraft 2. They're the wanna be the best, but are miles off the pace, but society has taught them that everyone can acheive, so the want it to be easier so they can get top marks. (Just like the education system.)

People need to get over themselves and accept playing a game at their level. But they're too arrogant to listen to advice, or accept defeat, so somehow the game is at fault.

Now this isn't to say that the game should exclude them, far from it. But that's what easy and normal are for.

[MortalEngines]

slikster wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...
Which I think its entirely untrue, I don't understand why people think RPGs are incredibly challenging and 'hardcore' compared to say FPS.

I don't know, why don't you explain to us all why there were multitudes of "This game is too hard!!!1!" threads when people were playing DA:O?  Maybe it wasn't for you or I, but for many it was.  It's distressing to those who enjoyed the kind of gameplay in DA:O to be potentially losing it, that anything "complex" may get stripped out of DA2.

I never said that DA:O isn't hard nor the RPG genre in general. My whole point is that some condescending people use the excuse that RPGs are harder and require more thinking skill as an excuse to claim higher intellect which isn't true at all. 

I don't know about those people claiming DA:O is hard but you must remember there are equally as many if not, more people who claim DA:O is too easy. Sure it depends on the player and how much they've played games in general but in terms of actually mechanic and skill, I wouldn't set the bar any higher for RPGs than for tactical FPS and that's the entire point of what I'm saying.