925 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

I´m drunk atm and drunks speak the truth.
So I am gonna say truthfully that you´re totally wrong and I´m right,

Because RPG purists are like conservatives and conservatives suck.

Modifié par Tirigon, 10 septembre 2010 - 12:24 .

[ErichHartmann]

Tirigon wrote...

I´m drunk atm and drunks speak the truth.
So I am gonna say truthfully that you´re totally wrong and I´m right,

Because RPG purists are like conservatives and conservatives suck.

Keep chugging.  You're grammar or spelling doesn't reflect drunk.  :innocent:  

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 10 septembre 2010 - 12:28 .

[Tirigon]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I´m drunk atm and drunks speak the truth.
So I am gonna say truthfully that you´re totally wrong and I´m right,

Because RPG purists are like conservatives and conservatives suck.

Keep chugging.  You're grammar or spelling doesn't reflect drunk.  :innocent:  

That´s because even drunk I´m still intelligent, unlike the conservatives who are stupid.



Look
It´s funny.

[tomcruisejr]

actually I hope the exact opposite.


i hope mass effect 3 takes notice at Dragon Age 2, DA2 has the best mix.

Put back in a real inventory, put back in real gear + gear slots, add a real talent/skill tree


and for god sakes make the cover spots blend in the environment.

Modifié par tomcruisejr, 10 septembre 2010 - 12:36 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

fanman72 wrote...

 Let's be honest here - a lot of elements from  traditional RPGs are really unncessary and don't add to the overall experience of playing a video game.  The strengths of many RPGs - storyline, characters, etc. is something I don't think bioware will be skimping out on anytime soon.  Now don't get me wrong, the gameplay in DA was fun but was overall it wasn't the greatest gameplay experience in the world.  The storyline, mood/atmosphere, and memorable characters more than made up for what I perceived to be technical gameplay shortcomings.  Mass Effect 1 had similar issues, most of which were fixed in ME2.  No I dont' care about dealing with a clunky inventory as long as i can alter my character's equipment's appearance.  No I don't care about dealing with inventory weight.  No I don't care about leveling up.  No I don't care about spending half of my time travelling to different places back and forth for "fetch this" type quests (what I call filler time).  

Keep the characters, story, plot, visuals, graphics, choices etc interesting.  Those are the only elements i really care from an RPG.  Then for all I care it can play like Dragon Effect 2.


*Is a typical Bioware forum posting nerd*



*Enjoys looting a new water bottle from a dead hurlock so that he can sell it for 3 copper*



*Spends 15 minutes getting to appropiate vendor because you're running out of inventory space*





My point is that there are a significant amount of elements among traditional RPGs which are flat out annoying and detract from the gameplay experience, rather than add to it

Mass Effect 2 is a shallow action game that borrows heavily from Gears of War. The gameplay isn't as good as Gears, but it does have the convo wheel, which adds some diversity. Still, I'd rather play Gears if I wanted to play a shooter. ME2 is RPG lite, just like Fable.

ME failed to live up to Kotor, so they just turned it into a full-on action game with the sequel. Dragon Age was not a failure, and was a great spiritual successor to BG and Kotor. The game knew what it was and what it wasn't. The biggest problem with Mass Effect is that it doesn't know what the hell it wants to be. Is it a shooter with RPG elements, or is it an RPG with shooter elements? Even BioWare can't make up their minds.

So, the answer would most certainly be NO. I have no desire for Dragon Age 2 to become Dragon Effect or something similar. The games are very different and should remain as such. That said, I would like to see certain strengths fused with the Dragon Age formula. ME did do some things right.

One last word of advice for you: If you do not like leveling up, inventory managment, or doing quests, I strongly suggest you stop playing RPG's. Or just play Mass Effect 2 and stop ruining it for all of us who actually enjoy some depth and complexity to our games.

[Pocketgb]

I'm pretty biased when it comes to this - of course, so is everyone, but I don't think my views are relatively widespread.

I love a good shooter, I love a good action game, I love a good RPG. But when it comes down to it, Bioware hasn't been able to nail down the RPG part. I guess I can blame Guild Wars for this: At its peak it was the most in-depth, most tactical, and most fun set of RPG mechanics I've ever experienced in a video game.

After BG2, Bioware hasn't been able to match this at all - but that's completely understandable. The old school "RPG factor" of a Bioware game is nigh miniscule compared to the rest of the goodness that they put emphasis on, and that's why I'm largely indifferent to how they choose to develop those mechanics (even if they develop them at all).

So if DA2's combat is simple tap-tappity fun, I really wouldn't mind. The most enjoyment I've gained from what they develop is the overall flashiness of the combat, and *that's* something Bioware's good at: Being a Jedi Guardian was indeed pretty badass. Jumping all over the place, swinging your lightsaber like a beast, *man* was that fun.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 septembre 2010 - 02:48 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Yeah, that was cool, and I wouldn't mind that feature in DA2. But I don't want it to turn into something like Fable, where one can just hold down the magic button and destroy everything in sight.

[Pocketgb]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Yeah, that was cool, and I wouldn't mind that feature in DA2. But I don't want it to turn into something like Fable, where one can just hold down the magic button and destroy everything in sight.

To start off, what "feature" are you talking about? What feature was I talking about, the action-game focus? I don't think I was terribly specific about any mechanic in general.

Now in regards to the second sentence of your post, I personally wouldn't compare it to Fable 2 but rather Dragon Age itself; specifically in regards to the massive AOE imbalance. I was immensely disappointed with DA:O's systems.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 septembre 2010 - 03:02 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Pocketgb wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Yeah, that was cool, and I wouldn't mind that feature in DA2. But I don't want it to turn into something like Fable, where one can just hold down the magic button and destroy everything in sight.

To start off, what "feature" are you talking about? What feature was I talking about, the action-game focus? I don't think I was terribly specific about any mechanic in general.

Now in regards to the second sentence of your post, I personally wouldn't compare it to Fable 2 but rather Dragon Age itself; specifically in regards to the massive AOE imbalance. I was immensely disappointed with DA:O's systems.

The feature that allowed you to engage the enemy quickly, even if they were far away. I liked that in Kotor. In DA, you have to walk all the way there.

I'm not comparing it to Fable 2. I'm just saying I don't want to end up being a hack n' slash like that game is.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All decision making is algorithmic

Right, I know that's what you think. I'd rather we not debate this again. to focus on ethics.

WIth the rachni queen choice, neither side had a particularly strong case.  There was too much uncertainty about the outcome.

Which parallels a significant number of decisions that have to be made. In fact, it parallels the entire problem of decision making: coming to a satisfactory choice in absence of perfect information. Though to be fair there should have been a make it someone else's problem choice.

I'm hard pressed to think of another choice in ME to which to compare it, given that the dialogue system didn't allow choice at all, and the other comparable situations (the genophage cure and the Thorian) only let you choose genocide.

I was thinking more in general, as opposed to in ME. What are the features of any ethical decision that make it interesting to you.

Is there an ethical choice from ME that springs to your mind that we could discuss?

I don't think ME was that rife with ethical choices, personally. Bioware is very binary in how they handle morality, even when they remove the morality slider.

[Pocketgb]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
I'm not comparing it to Fable 2. I'm just saying I don't want to end up being a hack n' slash like that game is.

That's a perfectly reasonable and understandable stance.

However, if you're stance is based on that direction to be 'lacking in depth', then I'd find that less agreeable.

[FieryDove]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Mass Effect 2 is a shallow action game that borrows heavily from Gears of War. The gameplay isn't as good as Gears, but it does have the convo wheel, which adds some diversity. Still, I'd rather play Gears if I wanted to play a shooter. ME2 is RPG lite, just like Fable.

ME failed to live up to Kotor, so they just turned it into a full-on action game with the sequel. Dragon Age was not a failure, and was a great spiritual successor to BG and Kotor. The game knew what it was and what it wasn't. The biggest problem with Mass Effect is that it doesn't know what the hell it wants to be. Is it a shooter with RPG elements, or is it an RPG with shooter elements? Even BioWare can't make up their minds.

So, the answer would most certainly be NO. I have no desire for Dragon Age 2 to become Dragon Effect or something similar. The games are very different and should remain as such. That said, I would like to see certain strengths fused with the Dragon Age formula. ME did do some things right.

One last word of advice for you: If you do not like leveling up, inventory managment, or doing quests, I strongly suggest you stop playing RPG's. Or just play Mass Effect 2 and stop ruining it for all of us who actually enjoy some depth and complexity to our games.

Excellent post

fanman72 wrote...
*Spends 15 minutes getting to appropiate vendor because you're running out of inventory space*My point is that there are a significant amount of elements among traditional RPGs which are flat out annoying and detract from the gameplay experience, rather than add to it

Right...so padding the game with even more repetitive and tedious mini-games makes it a better gameplay experience instead of a real inventory/loot system...oh wait no it doesn't. (yes imho)
If you cut out *all* the mini-games including the planet scanning ME2 is very short. But that is mainly the purpose of them, padding. I felt the option to gel items on the fly saved many trips to the store in ME1 but I guess people didn't like that either.
The best thing to do in an rpg that has loot is to stop loading the tables with junk or excessive amounts of it so no one is swimming in 5000 pistol IV's or like in DA 1001 fluorspar's/quartz/private documents...ugh

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Which parallels a significant number of decisions that have to be made. In fact, it parallels the entire problem of decision making: coming to a satisfactory choice in absence of perfect information.

That would depend to what extent you were concerned with the consequences of your decision.

I'm generally more concerned with making a good decision given the information I have, which is why decision making is algorithmic.  Information I don't have can't be taken into account, so its absence isn't a problem.  My decision made in its absence only fails to be defensible if I was responsible for the absence of that information.

But if I'm not, or if I at least have plausible deniability, then the decision can be judged based on the process I used to make it.  This is how I think decisions should always be judged, since the outcomes beyond that aren't predictable (if they were, that prediction would be part of the process).

The problem with the rachni queen, I thought, was that nearly all of the relevant information given was unverifiable.  I was being asked to make a world-changing decision with effectively no information.

[Persephone]

Mass Effect has become an adventure like shooter. ME2, for all its glitz, lost so much of ME1's depth, immersion and flavor. DAO had all this. None of them have matched the Baldur's Gate Series in scope, depth, varied relationships, quests, monsters, locations etc. No, I do not want Dragon Age to change into "ME in the middle ages".

[Nozybidaj]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

One last word of advice for you: If you do not like leveling up, inventory managment, or doing quests, I strongly suggest you stop playing RPG's. Or just play Mass Effect 2 and stop ruining it for all of us who actually enjoy some depth and complexity to our games.

This.

Also....

ME2 is RPG lite, just like Fable.

ME2 isn't near the RPG that Fable was.  Better action/adventure game though.  

[AlanC9]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
One last word of advice for you: If you do not like leveling up, inventory managment, or doing quests, I strongly suggest you stop playing RPG's

So I have to like all three of those in order to play RPGs?

And what about people who like everything else about RPGs but don't like those three things? Or two things, since I'm pretty sure "doing quests" is a red herring.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 septembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

Also
note that arranging stuff on the grid is a time sink.[/quote]

It's
part of the planning you do before you venture out into the world.[/quote]

No it isn't, it's just a time sink since there's no planning whatsoever. You're just rummaging and tidying up your crap while you replace all your gear for their clearly superior versions. What's the planning on saying "Hmm... do I really want to replace my old sword with this new one that is better in every single way?"

[quote]DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Let's hope they Mass Effectify their DLCs if LotSB vs. Witch Hunt is anything to go by.[/quote]

I've bought and downloaded both LotSB and Witch Hunt and while I was eager to play through the first and loved every second of it, I still haven't mustered the courage to go for the latter. I mean, not only have all the Dragon Age DLCs so far just been a recycling of areas of the orirginal game (RtO was Ostagar painted white, Darkspawn Chronicles was the final attack on Denerim with a Darkspawn party instead of your original group, etc. ), but Golems of Amgarrak has so dreadfully horrible, so empty, so unintersting, so pointless, and worst of all, so annoyingly difficult for all the wrong reasons that I just can't manage the will to pick up the game again.

And now it looks like Witch Hunt is exactly the same thing. That's wonderfull... <_<

[quote]UltraBoy360 wrote...

After buying and playing Witch Hunt
and Lair of the Shadow Broker yesterday I'm sorry to say that I hope
they Mass Effectify DA2's brains out.[/quote]

And that's not helping...

[quote]UltraBoy360 wrote...

I did love the main game at the time,
and loved the characters and writing, but ever bit of DLC and
Awakenings has made me like it less and less. Whereas ME2 DLC has made
me love it more and more with each release. [/quote]

That's not helping either...

[quote]ErichHartmann wrote...

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. [/quote]

That's really not helping...

[quote]Jestina wrote...

Thinking is bad. Must mash button more.

RIP
cerebral gaming.[/quote]

Don't worry, we're trying to bring it back with games that actually keep your brain blood flowing with combat that is actually affected by your decisions and the removal of all the stupid things that just get in your way with the excuse that busywork equals actual thought.

That's why we're trying to get DA2 to be a lot less like its predecessor and a lot more like ME2.

[quote]Rake21 wrote...

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

/topic

[quote]ErichHartmann wrote...



[quote]Tirigon wrote...



I´m
drunk atm and drunks speak the truth.

So I am gonna say truthfully
that you´re totally wrong and I´m right,



Because RPG purists are
like conservatives and conservatives suck.[/quote]

Keep chugging. 
You're grammar or spelling doesn't reflect drunk.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]  



[/quote]



Don't
pick on her grammar when you use "you're" instead of "your" . [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

[quote]EpicBoot2daFace
wrote...

ME failed to live up to Kotor, so they just turned it
into a full-on action game with the sequel. Dragon Age was not a
failure, and was a great spiritual successor to BG and Kotor. The game
knew what it was and what it wasn't.[/quote]

Is that why DA just felt like a dumbed-down MMORPG with no multiplayer that just tried way too hard to be a new Baldur's Gate?

[quote]EpicBoot2daFace
wrote...

The biggest problem with Mass Effect is that it doesn't
know what the hell it wants to be. Is it a shooter with RPG elements,
or is it an RPG with shooter elements? Even BioWare can't make up their
minds.[/quote]

Neither Bioware nor anyone. RPGs have changed and evolved so much that it's getting increasingly harder to pinpoint exactly just what makes an RPG.

Put 5 people on a room and you'll have 8 opinions on this topic. That doesn't make or break a good game though.

[quote]EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

One last word of
advice for you: If you do not like leveling up, inventory managment, or
doing quests, I strongly suggest you stop playing RPG's. Or just play
Mass Effect 2 and stop ruining it for all of us who actually enjoy some
depth and complexity to our games.[/quote]

If you really liked depth and complexity, you wouldn't want DA2 to be as dumbed-down, annoying and utterly boring as the first game was. You'd want it to have tactics, skills that actually had different uses and an item system that actually served as a part of your strategies instead of just another thing to juggle around.

Again, make it more like ME2.

[quote]FieryDove
wrote...



If you cut out *all* the mini-games
including the planet scanning ME2 is very short. But that is mainly the
purpose of them, padding. [/quote]

Cut out the planet scanning and you cut about one or two hours (at the most) of a game that takes around 60 hours to complete. Now if only I could cut out the padding of Dragon Age: Origins, that is, the utterly predictable and repetitive combat then I guess that it would make it much less of a chore to go through, but it would also cut about 70% of the game.

You want to talk about padding? Then I'd suggest you divert your attention to the game whose main gameplay aspect make it seem way too long.



[quote]FieryDove wrote...



I
felt the option to gel items on the fly saved many trips to the store
in ME1 but I guess people didn't like that either. [/quote]

It was the same as going to the store and getting rid of every single item you had (that was the "depth" of the inventory system: just collect tons of crap that you're just going to sell/turn into omnigel anyway), only you had to keep telling the game that yes, you really wanted to get rid of it, even after you did it for the16396th time

[MadCat221]

Why is Mass Effectification of DA a bad thing? Because Mass Effect is getting GearsOfWarsified itself.

Modifié par MadCat221, 10 septembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Vicious]

utterly predictable and repetitive combat

Combat in DAO was pretty terrible except for a few boss battles here and there.

[Collider]

Keep the characters, story, plot, visuals, graphics, choices etc interesting. Those are the only elements i really care from an RPG. Then for all I care it can play like Dragon Effect 2.

Aside from the graphics, something I really don't care much about, I agree. I play Dragon Age and Bioware games for the stories, not the gameplay. Of course, people play Bioware games for different reasons, so those who want more traditional RPG elements shouldn't be counted out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

No it isn't, it's just a time sink since there's no planning whatsoever. You're just rummaging and tidying up your crap while you replace all your gear for their clearly superior versions. What's the planning on saying "Hmm... do I really want to replace my old sword with this new one that is better in every single way?"

Well that's poorly implemented, then.  I would rather most of your gear decisions not be as easy as that.

Vicious wrote...

Combat in DAO was pretty terrible except for a few boss battles here and there.

Then it was a few boss battles here and there better than ME2's combat, which is just awful througout.

[Collider]

Then it was a few boss battles here and there better than ME2's combat, which is just awful througout.

Honestly, I didn't enjoy any of the DA:O gameplay on 360. I understand that the PC version is better here, though.

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Well that's poorly implemented, then.  I would rather most of your gear decisions not be as easy as that.[/quote]

Now if only it would be more like ME2 (again) where each weapon has distinct characteristics, strong points and drawbacks that make them more fitting to different situations and gaming playstyles. But of course that you can't have depth when your weapon shoots bullets, only when you have a medieval weapon with lots of numbers attached to it can you have "depth".

[quote]Vicious wrote...

Combat in DAO was pretty terrible except for a few boss battles here and there.[/quote]

Then it was a few boss battles here and there better than ME2's combat, which is just awful througout.[/quote]

OK:

• Since every - single - boss battle was fought in exactly the same way that you'd faced everything else, then I'd really like to see how those were any better than the rest of the game and
• ME2's combat system actually had tactics, depth, and most important, fun going for it, instead of the same MMO routine done ad infinitum until everything in your path was dead. So, how exactly is ME's combat awful compared to that?

[FieryDove]

Lusitanum wrote...

FieryDove
wrote...
If you cut out *all* the mini-games
including the planet scanning ME2 is very short. But that is mainly the
purpose of them, padding.

Cut out the planet scanning and you cut about one or two hours (at the most) of a game that takes around 60 hours to complete. Now if only I could cut out the padding of Dragon Age: Origins, that is, the utterly predictable and repetitive combat then I guess that it would make it much less of a chore to go through, but it would also cut about 70% of the game.

You want to talk about padding? Then I'd suggest you divert your attention to the game whose main gameplay aspect make it seem way too long.

I would say you are the minority, the complaints were huge all over the net about PS and it took many people many many hours. (pc version was horrible before patch) Also I was talking about all the blasted mini-games vs a real loot system. And no I don't find ammo clip hunting very much fun nor proper loot. With *all* the mini-games taken out and no ammo hunting the game lasts me about 18-20 hours...not that I really care, I never expected it longer.

As to padding and *utterly predictible and repetitive combat* ...you made a typo and are saying that for ME2 yes?

If the UI for the pc was made with the pc strengths in mind I might not have been so harsh. Mouse/keyboard is win/win in shooters...except ME2. ME1 was much better on the PC than #2 (interface/gameplay) and I won't even go into the war which was a better RPG mix. Everyone has an opinion and there is no point trying to sway people to one's own point of view or belittle them for opposing views.