925 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Freakaz0idx wrote...
If shooter combat isn't fun to play, they wouldn't be the best sellers across every board.

What a dumb statement. By your own logic Britney Spears produces good music because she sold millions of albums and McDonald's is good food because so many people eat there.

Plenty of people think so.

I happen to disagree with them, as (most probably) do you, but that doesn´t make their opinion invalid.

(Well in case of music it does because it can be objectively proven that most Pop music has no quality, but that´s a different matter.

[AlanC9]

Vandrayke wrote...

For the people who continually say that when BioWare wants to expand it's audience and will do so at the expense of it's most loyal fans, I'll just point out that everyone who has made it to the most basic marketing classes knows that the diehard customers are the most valuable customers you can have, and the numbers back this up

The challenge is in keeping the diehards happy while moving casual customers into the diehard territory and gaining more casual customers.

But the diehards are not a homogeneous group. If anything, these threads show that the diehards are likely to be the ones who disagree most passionately about what makes a good game -- or even, more specifically, a good Bioware game.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's sorted in a standard order, but that means that you won't know where anythng is unless you have perfect knowledge of the contents of your inventory.

If they'd used a grid instead of a list (I'm thinking of an icon-based grid, not a NWN-style tetris grid) , they could fit more items on the screen at a time and allow you to sort the items manually, thus ensureing that anything you want is exactly where you left it.

I'm confused again. The list doesn't work well because you don't have perfect knowledge of the contents of your inventory, but the grid works because you do?

Also note that arranging stuff on the grid is a time sink. Does search time really come down enough to offset this loss? I did not find this to be so. Though DA's inventory isn't as efficient as, say, KotOR's, my impression is that I spent much less time fiddling with the DAO inventory than I did with the NWN1 inventory. "Impression" because I didn't actually time myself.

[Vandrayke]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

For the people who continually say that when BioWare wants to expand it's audience and will do so at the expense of it's most loyal fans, I'll just point out that everyone who has made it to the most basic marketing classes knows that the diehard customers are the most valuable customers you can have, and the numbers back this up

The challenge is in keeping the diehards happy while moving casual customers into the diehard territory and gaining more casual customers.

But the diehards are not a homogeneous group. If anything, these threads show that the diehards are likely to be the ones who disagree most passionately about what makes a good game -- or even, more specifically, a good Bioware game.

Absolutely.  The real point I guess is that BioWare isn't "ignoring its diehard fans and going after casual fans" as so many people like to say.  

[Vandrayke]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's sorted in a standard order, but that means that you won't know where anythng is unless you have perfect knowledge of the contents of your inventory.

If they'd used a grid instead of a list (I'm thinking of an icon-based grid, not a NWN-style tetris grid) , they could fit more items on the screen at a time and allow you to sort the items manually, thus ensureing that anything you want is exactly where you left it.

I'm confused again. The list doesn't work well because you don't have perfect knowledge of the contents of your inventory, but the grid works because you do?

Also note that arranging stuff on the grid is a time sink. Does search time really come down enough to offset this loss? I did not find this to be so. Though DA's inventory isn't as efficient as, say, KotOR's, my impression is that I spent much less time fiddling with the DAO inventory than I did with the NWN1 inventory. "Impression" because I didn't actually time myself.

I hated the grid system.  I'd much rather have a sortable list.  

[abadomen]

Golden-Rose wrote...

ME2 isn't really like JE in any way, except perhaps length.

Did you read my entire post? I said it was more like JE than it is DAO.

It is more like Jade Empire because the RPG elements are streamlined. The story and character elements are there...but the "RPG Elements" are not as much a part of it as DAO.

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Altima Darkspells wrote...

It's an RPG.  One of the greatest features is (what some would call needlessly) complexity and micro-management.  I don't want combat and character systems to be stream-lined.  I want them to be as complex as, say, the D&D/D20 based systems.[/quote]

Really? Then why is micro-management "one of the greatest features of RPGs"? Can you explain that by relying on more than just "it's tradition"?

Also, "complexity" and "depth" are two different things, and if all you have is the former, then that's just another hindrance.

[quote]Altima Darkspells wrote...

Remember,more complexity means more options, instead of the same thing over and over and over (which you can choose to do in, say, DAO, but you're not forced to).[/quote]

So... you just made my point for me: just because you force complexity on something by putting a crapload of rules and tedious micro-managment doesn't mean that you're given many options besides "doing the right thing" or "sucking hard".

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Inventory should add someaspect of strategic planning (having the right equipment - having enough free space to collect what you find - choosing between selling loot and buying new vs. hoarding for when you need it).[/quote]

Except that most of the time it's just a matter of picking the +3 sword over your previous +2 weapon and then getting to town to click everything you have into the nearest shop you find. Again, that's not much when it comes to choice and it's just pointless busywork

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That many recent games have used an inventory system so poorly designed that it fails at this basic function is not a reason to abandon the mechanic entirely.  It's a reason to stop streamlining it so much.

Have you ever played a game with a decent inventory system?[/quote]

Since that pretty much every game that I can think of relied on filling my backpack with junk that forced me to backtrack repeatedly just to sell all my stuff... no, not that I remember.

[quote]darknoon5 wrote...

Mass effect and Dragon Age are both great series but they are stronger in different ways, so yes, you
are the only one.[/quote]

What is up with the constant "you are the only one" when there are pages after pages of people who agree (in varying degrees) with the OP?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Wonderllama4 wrote...

MassEffect is the best Xbox 360 game of all time. if Dragon Age is influenced by anything, it should definitely be Mass Effect!![/quote]
But it's a pretty poor PC game, so I don't want it influencing anything.
[/quote]

Again, with the "I" in your posts. As if it meant something.

Not to mention that this sentence is a pretty stupid thing to say. Unless you're talking about a bad port, a good game will always be a good game, regardless of the platform it was originally released or ported to.

[quote]boohead wrote...

I want an inventory. [/quote]

Life isn't boring enough without all the needless backtracking to sell crap I don't need!

[quote]boohead wrote...

I want a fleshed out skill system. [/quote]

Bring back DA1's craploads of skills I never used and just ended up adding to my list at random by level 12, as if it were a stamp collection!

[quote]boohead wrote...

I want more than 4 abilities. [/quote]

Bring back all the "different" skills that all do the exact same thing! I love having to press my keyboard keys from 1 to 6 repeatedly just to spam the same spells over and over again!

[quote]boohead wrote...

I want tactical camera![/quote]

That adds no tactics (why does it have that name again?) or depth whatsoever and just restricts my line of sight, but makes me feel smrt when I use it!

Modifié par Lusitanum, 07 septembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[Halcyon Lavellan]

I don't want to get involved in the debate over what must have or must-not-have features equate to a cRPG, but to go back to the crux of the original post :-

My main point of contention is that ultimately I can't play the character concept that I had in ME compared to DAO and for me that is more the essence of roleplaying. The fact that Bioware has a strong track record in creating (for me, anyway) a compelling narrative simply frames these concepts differently and I can enjoy the story (but that in itself isn't necessarily the roleplaying).

I'm not a min/maxer - I feel that destroys the whole RPG element completely; in BG2 (with Weidu's Tactics / Ascension on) I would happily play a Swashbuckler/Warrior who dual wielded daggers only and wore only Studded Leather (no Full Plate +5 with +4 Dex bonus for me!), and in DAO I had my rogue use Crossbows regardless of the DPS inefficiency as that was simply the weapon of choice my rogue had (forgive me if this has changed substantially since Awakening, I have yet to play that through). The point of this statement is that I don't want to *have* to play a certain build or playstyle in order to accomodate a more action-oriented combat system; it seems unfairly set against using FPS-twitch skills compared to skills inherent in your character concept (interplacing that with Warp / Pull etc.. doesn't really solve that deficiency).

I honestly don't care that I can headshot someone from the get-go, but I can do that in Unreal Tournament, and I don't want a stylised combat involving multiple companion skillsets reduced to specialised "competitive advantage" roles without any luxury of character concept (I can get that from an MMO). But it means that I can start a Soldier class and basically be maxed out skill-wise (just not damage-wise) while other classes need to not just increase their skill levels for damage but also actually learn how to use their skills, such as arc'ing, combo'ing and so on (from some forums threads, some people don't realise that a Shep biotic can arc abilities compared to a companion biotic, for instance). I would think that's why most people gravitate towards Soldier as they have a ready-made ability to play that class - and well - but I'm digressing.

Personally, I liked that in ME1 I was handicapped at low weapon skill levels, as it felt like the game was adjusting for any sort of FPS skill I already had - if I wanted to be awesome with the Assault Rifle, I had to actually put points into it. Similarly, back in Planescape Torment, I could bump my Intelligence or Wisdom above 18 to gain access to dialogue reflecting my genius or insight respectively - but I didn't *have* to be a genius or savant in real life to role-play a character that way. I think the ME2 lost that quality which for me adds value to the Role Playing aspect. I'm aware that ME gun combat and DA medieval combat would play out quite differently, but I don't really want to start moving towards the Witcher or Assassins Creed route when playing DA.

Another example is the dialogue - I played an Adept but this was not at all affected into the Conversation or Interrrupt systems. I would have loved to have biotically involved myself in the Miranda / Jack or Samara / Morinth altercations. This contrasted to a great degree with the dialogue in DAO, whereby the Origins backstory really made me feel like the character was my own and, although limited for practicality into defined range of parameters, there was still a fair selection.

Finally, the nuanced and precision-oriented choices were also a strong point of difference. I would really stop to think about what I said, out of say 8 possible lines to Alistair to convey the personality and story that I wanted. ME was more clearly good / bad / Investigate and I agree with a previous poster, if we must go dialogue wheel then make it more than six sectors please (or possibly just use all six for each response even - voice over budget notwithstanding, heh).

Its for those reasons I would prefer my DA:O and ME kept seperate =P

Sorry for the wall of text!

[AlanC9]

Lusitanum wrote...

But it's a pretty poor PC game, so I don't want it influencing anything.

Again, with the "I" in your posts. As if it meant something.

Not to mention that this sentence is a pretty stupid thing to say. Unless you're talking about a bad port, a good game will always be a good game, regardless of the platform it was originally released or ported to.

Would you have preferred that he had said "But it's a pretty poor PC game, so it shouldn't influence anything"? Unlike a hell of a lot of posters in the thread, Sylvius remembers that there is a distinction between his personal preferences and some sort of Platonic Ideal of Game Design. We should all be saying "I think" more often.

As for ME being a poor PC game, Sylvius was replying to Wonderllama4, who had just declared ME to be "the best Xbox 360 game of all time", not just "a good game." It is quite possible for a game to be the best XBox 360 game of all time while still being a poor game. I'm guessing that Sylvius didn't disagree with WL4 outright because he doesn't consider himself competent to evaluate XBox 360 games.

[AlanC9]

pashionsydney wrote...
Personally, I liked that in ME1 I was handicapped at low weapon skill levels, as it felt like the game was adjusting for any sort of FPS skill I already had - if I wanted to be awesome with the Assault Rifle, I had to actually put points into it.

My problem with this was that it contradicts the story. Shepard simply shouldn't have low weapon skill levels at the start. There's nothing especially wrong with the ME1 combat implementation, but Shepard should have started as a mid-range character.

[Giggles_Manically]

I dont mind most changes they are doing.

I dont like the VO main PC though. As soon as someone else is talking that makes it their story, not mine.

[Ashira Shepard]

I kind of agree with the OP...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont mind most changes they are doing.
I dont like the VO main PC though. As soon as someone else is talking that makes it their story, not mine.

I actually prefer making different characters separate from myself, but I'm a writer so I guess that comes naturally to me to create  characters and make them diverse. However, even when playing my own Shepard, I'll still feel the same "emotions" so to speak.

Like hating Cerberus, pining after Samara, greatly disapproving of anyone being racist and being a total hypocrite for being a misanthrope. However, she's still different, she likes whiskey, I hate it. She likes fighting; I don't like hurting people. And it can go on.

As long as the VO isn't a voice I can't stand, it should be fine.

I'm just sorry not everyone can be appeased. I can imagine Bioware kind of feeling like they're giving bloody sacrifices to a a bunch of angry demon gods.

"We have seasoned the victim with many things to make your feasting that much better oh great picky ones!"

Some Gods: "YOU HAVE SERVED US WELL! CONTINUE!"

Other Gods: "BLAAAAAREGH! DESTROY! PUNISH! BURN!"

Or ya know...something.

Modifié par AshiraShepard, 08 septembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont mind most changes they are doing.
I dont like the VO main PC though. As soon as someone else is talking that makes it their story, not mine.

That's a matter of opinion. I feel far more connected to my Shepards then I do with ANY of my Grey Wardens, Revans, Exiles. 

It could also be argued that you aren't really making your story in any Bioware game, but following a path that the writers set you on with a few choices on how you want to act in certain cases but on the whole you still follow a linear path, and from that viewpoint ( which quite a great deal of people share ) it is better to have a voiced main character then a non-voiced one.

[maxernst]

I don't mind the voiceover--though it would be better if we had a choice of different voice actors. My only worry is whether the text describing your dialogue on the dialogue wheel will be better than it is in Mass Effect. It's not good for you to be surprised by your own character's behavior in an RPG, and sometimes I am. The little tone-describing icons may help a little, there. We'll see.



One thing I have noticed that the voice over does is that I find it jarring to watch YouTube videos of ME. I keep thinking "That's not Shepherd--he doesn't look anything like him!" whereas with DA:O you always feel like it's supposed to be somebody else's character.

[Giggles_Manically]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont mind most changes they are doing.
I dont like the VO main PC though. As soon as someone else is talking that makes it their story, not mine.

That's a matter of opinion. I feel far more connected to my Shepards then I do with ANY of my Grey Wardens, Revans, Exiles. 

It could also be argued that you aren't really making your story in any Bioware game, but following a path that the writers set you on with a few choices on how you want to act in certain cases but on the whole you still follow a linear path, and from that viewpoint ( which quite a great deal of people share ) it is better to have a voiced main character then a non-voiced one.

Well the change of tone they talk about sounds nice, a VOed protagonist makes it seem far to much like a movie to me. Really in Mass Effect I cant count how many times Shepard said or did things that I was not expecting.
ie Hot Smex with the Consort in ME1.

Overall though hearing another voice talking and doing things just removes me out of the game, and makes it an interactive movie to me.

[Taleroth]

There are certain Mass Effect elements I want, certain elements I want to stay the heck away. I dislike how we're already referring to the character as Hawke, since that's detaching it from being personal. But I'd be more concerned if they took gameplay elements. Tactical gameplay was the part of the game I loved and Mass Effect doesn't have that, favoring more action play.

[Rake21]

If by "Mass Efectify" you mean either make it as good or better than it's predecessor, then yes.

[ErichHartmann]

DA team could learn a few pointers from the ME2 team on making high quality DLC. Shadow Broker and Overlord puts any extra content for DAO to shame.

[xiZverx]

fanman72 wrote...

Die lone guy!

PLEASE! Please please! Devs, don't turn Dragon age into a Console game. I beg you! You have seen the sucess of Dragon Age 1. You do NOT NEED TO simplify it. You do not need to make it compatible with retarded console players. It's right the way it is made now. Do not simplify it just for the sakes of 2% more buyers, and a WHOLE lot of worse critics.

[captain.subtle]

Idiots are always on both sides of an argument. That said, the debate about the nature of an RPG needs to stop. If a developer declares that his game is an RPG it IS an RPG no matter what.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm confused again. The list doesn't work well because you don't have perfect knowledge of the contents of your inventory, but the grid works because you do?

No.  With a grid you only need to have knowledge of a subset of your inventory (the bit you purposefully arranged).  As the rest of your inventory changes (you find loot, you swap weapons, whatnot) the arranged section stays the same, so you only need to learn its contents and structure one time and that knowledge will serve you throughout the game.

A list only gives you the same ease of use if you have perfect knowledge of the whole of your inventory all of the time.  And that's absurd, because it's constantly changing.

Also note that arranging stuff on the grid is a time sink.

It's part of the planning you do before you venture out into the world.

Does search time really come down enough to offset this loss?

I would think it absiolutely does, as you access your inventory constantly throughout the game.  But even if it didn't, I would rather do the preparation all at once and then never have to navigate my inventory again.  Having to manipulate and scroll through the lists every time irritates me (because I know it's not necessary, and it's something I would never have to do in the real world).

Have you ever watched a woman dig through her purse looking for something?  It's basically a big bag filled with stuff, and there's no structure to it at all.  I couldn't possibly tolerate this on a regular basis, but this is exactly how a list inventory works.

I carry a lot of stuff around with me everywhere I go, much like someone with a purse.  But I don't carry a purse.  I wear a jacket filled with pockets.  I know where everything in my jacket is, so if I want my keys I can find them instantly.  If I want some lip balm I can find it instantly.  If I want some napkins (you never know when you'll need a napkin) I can find some instantly.

I have no idea why an in-game inventory system that doesn't have to worry about shape or volume or mass has to work less well than a real-world inventory system that does have to accommodate those things.

I did not find this to be so. Though DA's inventory isn't as efficient as, say, KotOR's, my impression is that I spent much less time fiddling with the DAO inventory than I did with the NWN1 inventory. "Impression" because I didn't actually time myself.

I'm sure that if you didn't bother arranging your NWN inventory in a useful way it would take more time to fiddle with it.  Anyone who wants to spend zero time working directly with their inventory would certainly prefer the list.  But those people, I think, are ignoring that they do have to spend time working with their inventory every time they access it, and that's not better.  It just feels better because they haven't measured it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm guessing that Sylvius didn't disagree with WL4 outright because he doesn't consider himself competent to evaluate XBox 360 games.

There are only 4 different 360 games I've played for more than a few minutes each:

Halo 3
MVP Baseball 2009
Forza 2
Fable II

Of those, I would count all but Forza to be of inadequate quality.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 septembre 2010 - 06:50 .

[Tirigon]

captain.subtle wrote...

Idiots are always on both sides of an argument. That said, the debate about the nature of an RPG needs to stop. If a developer declares that his game is an RPG it IS an RPG no matter what.

Not really. The developer might just be stupid, or he might lie to attract buyers.
Actually, all developers lie to an extent, so that is not even unlikely.

[Tirigon]

The big problem with voiced characters is not the VO itself, but BioWare´s crappy attitude of not writing the entire line in the wheel / options list.

I don´t mind Shepard´s voice. What annoys me is that he often (in fact, almost 99% of the time) says stuff I wouldn´t have chosen had it been written down the way it is spoken.

[sanadawarrior]

Tirigon wrote...

captain.subtle wrote...

Idiots are always on both sides of an argument. That said, the debate about the nature of an RPG needs to stop. If a developer declares that his game is an RPG it IS an RPG no matter what.

Not really. The developer might just be stupid, or he might lie to attract buyers.
Actually, all developers lie to an extent, so that is not even unlikely.

But if you are trying to attract buyers, why use RPG as a descriptor? That would be like lying to purposefuly scare customers away not attract them.