332 réponses à ce sujet

[Maconbar]

We should all be afraid because change is coming to the world.

[FDrage]

yep .. we should all except chances whatever they are because all chances are good always and without doubt ... look at the invention of espresso machines. Best thing ever that happened to coffee brewing (ok you probably can't call it brewing in that sense anymore) when compared to filter or cafetiere coffee.



And always only express concerns about changes after they happened ... always, because it is always easier to change things after they happened then before.

[Aradace]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aradace wrote...

My only arguement is that based off of RPGs made within the last 7 years, there is a list (a substantial one at that) of RPGs that are 30 hours and UNDER and most of them were damn good RPGs in my opinion.

I can't even name 10 RPGs made in the past 7 years.

Aradace wrote...

Ok...so here's my list...AGAIN lol.

1-7: The .//hack series (but when compounded they do equal over 30 hours but that doesnt count as we're counting individual titles. Each one of those is around 20-25 hrs) (First 4 games are 2003-2004 G.U. is 06-07)

8.) Atlier Iris '05
9.) Atlier Iris 2 '06
10.) Atlier Iris 3 '07
11.) BG: Dark Alliance '01 (So we may not count this one)
12.) BG: Dark Alliance 2 (Completed both of these in UNDER 30 hours) '04
13.) Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter '03
14.) Champions of Norrath '04
15.) Champions of Norrath 2: Return to Arms '05
16.) Digital Devil Saga '05
17.) Digital Devil Saga 2 '05
18.) Grandia 2 '02
19.) Grandia 3 '06
20.) Grandia Extreme '02
21.) Kingdom Hearts '02
22.) Kingdom Hearts 2 '06
23.) Kingdom Hearts Re-chain of Memories '08
24.) Legend of Legia 2: Duel Saga '02
25.) Lord of the Rings: The Third Age '04
26.) MS Saga: A New Dawn '06
27.) Shadow Hearts '04
28.) Shadow Hearts From the New World '06
29.) Shin Megami Tensai: Devil Summoner '06
30.) Shin Megami Tensai: Nocturne '04
31.) Suikoden 3 (The only one in the series that I finished UNDER 30 hours lol) '03 I think
32.) Wild Arms 3 '02
33.) Wild Arms 4 '06
34.) Wild Arms 5 '07
36.) Wild Arms Alter Code F '05
37.) Fable 2 '08
38.) Alpha Protocol (Yes, it's TECHNICALLY an RPG lol) '10
39.) Magna Carta 2 07 or '08 I dont remember
40.) Infinite Undiscovery '08
41.) White Knight Chronicles ''07 or '08

I still can't name 10 RPGs made in the past 7 years.

And that's all the ones I can think of atm...Remember, when comprising your list that we're NOT talking within the past 10-20 years

Why not, though?  Your 7 year threshhold seems arbitrary.

I would even limit it to 20 years.  The earliest CRPG I've played - Oubliette - was released 33 years ago (and it wasn't especially large, though it also didn't have an ending, so you can't really measure its length).

The reason it's limited? To prove that the the current "norm" of RPGs is "shorter" (25-30hrs on average).  Because back in the day longer RPGs were the norm.....And thats what other companines followed suit with....Right now, shorter RPGs seem to be the norm.  The only reason for the list really is to prove that EA/BioWare isnt just spontaneously deciding to be radical with making a shorter RPG.  It is the current "norm" and the "norm" is what is making money because (unfortunately depending on your view) the "nerd ragers" of the world who want the "longer" RPG are pretty much a minority.  And within that minority, is another minority that boycotts RPGs based on their length alone.  So when you think about it like that, again, the people pissing and moaning here about DA2 being shorter really is just literally, a drop in the bucket and therefore, as a whole, dismissed.

As a side note, the only reason I can name that many is because as Ive said in a few other posts recently, I literally grew up on RPGs lol. 

@FD - There is a difference between "expressing a concern" and just out and out complaining.  Some folks are doing just that, complaining and judging the game before it's even released.  And never did I say that all change is good.  I DID imply however that all change cannot automatically be assumed as bad (As you and several others have already expressed) until you've actually played the game. 

Modifié par Aradace, 10 septembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[Merci357]

Aradace wrote...

The reason it's limited? To prove that the the current "norm" of RPGs is "shorter" (25-30hrs on average).  Because back in the day longer RPGs were the norm.....And thats what other companines followed suit with....Right now, shorter RPGs seem to be the norm.  The only reason for the list really is to prove that EA/BioWare isnt just spontaneously deciding to be radical with making a shorter RPG.  It is the current "norm" and the "norm" is what is making money because (unfortunately depending on your view) the "nerd ragers" of the world who want the "longer" RPG are pretty much a minority.  

Well, you could as easily make an list of RPGs that likely take longer then this 30 hour mark. Drakensang I+II, The Witcher, Divinity II: Ego Draconis, Risen, Fallout 3, Oblivion, just to name those I've played myself besides ME2/DAO in the last few years. JRPGs don't count in my book, as I don't play them, they likely target a different audience anyway.
That said, playtimes differs so much between players, evidently there are many that finish a complete DAO game in about half the time I need to do a 100% complete run. And just because, let's say Alpha Protocoll, was quite short, I enjoyed it. If the shorter game has no "collect 20 bear asses" and "deliver 20 potions" side quests, by all means, I'm fine with the shorter one.

[Aradace]

Merci357 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

The reason it's limited? To prove that the the current "norm" of RPGs is "shorter" (25-30hrs on average).  Because back in the day longer RPGs were the norm.....And thats what other companines followed suit with....Right now, shorter RPGs seem to be the norm.  The only reason for the list really is to prove that EA/BioWare isnt just spontaneously deciding to be radical with making a shorter RPG.  It is the current "norm" and the "norm" is what is making money because (unfortunately depending on your view) the "nerd ragers" of the world who want the "longer" RPG are pretty much a minority.  

Well, you could as easily make an list of RPGs that likely take longer then this 30 hour mark. Drakensang I+II, The Witcher, Divinity II: Ego Draconis, Risen, Fallout 3, Oblivion, just to name those I've played myself besides ME2/DAO in the last few years. JRPGs don't count in my book, as I don't play them, they likely target a different audience anyway.
That said, playtimes differs so much between players, evidently there are many that finish a complete DAO game in about half the time I need to do a 100% complete run. And just because, let's say Alpha Protocoll, was quite short, I enjoyed it. If the shorter game has no "collect 20 bear asses" and "deliver 20 potions" side quests, by all means, I'm fine with the shorter one.

That was the whole point of my list....To prove that the amount of RPGs that take 30hrs or less to complete FAR exceeds the ones that do.  Believe me, if there was an RPG growing up (unless it was PC only or on a system I didnt own which was pretty rare.) it was pretty certain that I was playing it.  Again, my point is to prove that "shorter" RPGs are the current norm and hence why EA/BioWare may be going in that direction because the norm sells to the normal masses.  If they can draw in a "new" fanbase equal to or moreso than their "minority" of "Hardcore" players. (by hardcore I mean the whiners in general.) Then they dont have to worry about losing profits over making a shorter game.  Again, tying back into that people NOT buying the game isnt going to say much in the end so do what you will.  And YES....JRPGs DO count because they are STILL an RPG.  Whether you play them or not is irrelevant.  They're still an RPG and therefore still count in the list and still count toward proving said point.  Im not saying I want a longer RPG, nor am I saying that I want a shorter RPG.  What I AM saying is this:  The people that are judging that the game is going to suck (as an RPG or as a whole) before its even released is not only petty, but outright pointless.

Modifié par Aradace, 10 septembre 2010 - 10:58 .

[FDrage]

Aradace wrote...

@FD - There is a difference between "expressing a concern" and just out and out complaining.  Some folks are doing just that, complaining and judging the game before it's even released.  And never did I say that all change is good.  I DID imply however that all change cannot automatically be assumed as bad (As you and several others have already expressed) until you've actually played the game. 

Firstly, I never said nor implied that ALL changes are bad or have to be bad, that in regards to me is you implying it. I'm fully aware that changes can never be completely judged until you looked at it yourself as not one person has the exact same taste as one self.

Secondly, every marketing department invites these kind of things by revealing only glimses of information and then act surprise when people don't like what these glimes of infromation "implies".

Also, when I follow these kind of discussions (I seldom reply to same as they never seem to go anywhere in the first place) it alwayse seems to me that there are plenty of people who don't want to acknowledge someone else perseved "negative" opinion of a specific point. In which case a "cocern" becomes a "complain". I'm not saying that you do that actually I'm not even implying it. But it does happen often enough and therefore whatever "concern" people have is instantly dismissed as a "complain" instead of at least acknowledged.

People probably have been "Burned" by Bioware or other game developers in the past by certain development when using a "wait and see" approach to a concern they had and when they see a development that sounds similar then ... well ... they express a concern/complain about. At some point the cup that is half-full becomes half-empty.
Personally when I heard the word "Streamlining" in the same sentence as "game development" my cup is half-empty due to it mainly working out in a way that I don't enjoy too much. But then I'm not a professional game developer and therefore regardless of if I "express my conecern" beforhand or afterwards it won't make any difference ... at least in the grand scheme of things. So I tend to keep my mouth shut when it comes to these kind of "streamlining" dicsussions ... and tend to judge after more info is out if I buy a game or not. But that is purely based on a) a Demo (as reviews by webpages just can be as biased) or  I buy the game, dislike it and never touch it again but then also properly not buy a "follow-up" game if it doesn't convince me otherwise (e.g. witcher combat).

Also when do you even have a small chance of influencing a game developement at all ? After the game came out? Not really, teh game is done finished, etc. no way that game can be changed ... if at all one needs to start as early as possible. I do agree that is by expressing concerns in a more fundamental and thought out manner then "I HATE THAT NO  is NOT INCLUDE. NOT BUYING the GAME!!!!". But even legitimate concerns (who judges that anway) need to be expressed before hand otherwise there won't be any chance whatsoever of any company including it in a finished product.

and Lastly (or so), I tend to bring up the opposite side of arguments (or things like that) when I feel that people missing things and discusion become too one sided.

Anyway signing off for the weekend ... have fun

Modifié par FDrage, 10 septembre 2010 - 01:28 .

[Nozybidaj]

FDrage wrote...

yep .. we should all except chances whatever they are because all chances are good always and without doubt ... look at the invention of espresso machines. Best thing ever that happened to coffee brewing (ok you probably can't call it brewing in that sense anymore) when compared to filter or cafetiere coffee.

And always only express concerns about changes after they happened ... always, because it is always easier to change things after they happened then before.

Well said.

[0rz0]

Change is good. There's no evolution without it, and even if it's worse it serves as experience for the future. There's always the fear of the unknown though.

And if you think about it, if you want to play the "old" Dragon age, there's nothing stopping you from playing it.

Oh and actually stuff is easier to prevent than change it once it's in place. People can suffer much before they reach a treshold and are bothered to move their butts.

Modifié par 0rz0, 10 septembre 2010 - 03:32 .

[AlanC9]

jonv1234 wrote...

just a fun fact the series of dots '...' is an accepted punctuation mark called an ellipsis. Good in many languages.

Yep. But I didn't think Monica was trying to tell us that all her thoughts are unfinished.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aradace wrote...

As a side note, the only reason I can name that many is because as Ive said in a few other posts recently, I literally grew up on RPGs lol. 

So did I.

I was disputing that the bulk of your list was RPGs.  I haven't ever seen a JRPG I think qualifies as an RPG.  The player never gets the freedom to control what his character does or why.  JPRGs just tell a story at the player, rather than let the player create his character's own personal story.

[Aradace]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aradace wrote...

As a side note, the only reason I can name that many is because as Ive said in a few other posts recently, I literally grew up on RPGs lol. 

So did I.

I was disputing that the bulk of your list was RPGs.  I haven't ever seen a JRPG I think qualifies as an RPG.  The player never gets the freedom to control what his character does or why.  JPRGs just tell a story at the player, rather than let the player create his character's own personal story.

It doesnt matter...A JRPG still TECHNICALLY qualifies as an RPG by the video game industries definition of the word which in this matter, is the only one that actually matters.  I respect your opinion that you personally think that JRPGs dont count based on your own but that doesnt count as fact though.  By the gaming industries definition JRPGs are STILL RPGs.  I can assure you that there are Japanese that think the same thing about OUR RPGs in similar circumstances in that Western RPGs dont count as RPGs.  If we were going solely off of opinions then you'd be right.  But we're going off of fact.  And by fact, they ARE still RPGs.  Yes, I've repeated that several times in this post just to make sure that anyone else that tries to discredit a JRPG as an actual RPG realizes that opinions dont count in regards to my list.  Just stick to the facts.

Modifié par Aradace, 12 septembre 2010 - 08:49 .

[Aradace]

0rz0 wrote...

Change is good. There's no evolution without it, and even if it's worse it serves as experience for the future. There's always the fear of the unknown though.

And if you think about it, if you want to play the "old" Dragon age, there's nothing stopping you from playing it.

Oh and actually stuff is easier to prevent than change it once it's in place. People can suffer much before they reach a treshold and are bothered to move their butts.

And that is what a good portion of these people are afraid of at this point, the "unknown".  And because of that, they fear the changes being made to the game, and in turn, immediately assume the game is going to suck.  Admittedly there are SOME who arent doing that.  But the bulk of the people voicing "concerns" are actually the ones whining how they think a game is going to suck before they even play it.

[Mercannis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aradace wrote...

As a side note, the only reason I can name that many is because as Ive said in a few other posts recently, I literally grew up on RPGs lol. 

So did I.

I was disputing that the bulk of your list was RPGs.  I haven't ever seen a JRPG I think qualifies as an RPG.  The player never gets the freedom to control what his character does or why.  JPRGs just tell a story at the player, rather than let the player create his character's own personal story.

I think the main distinction here is console RPGs and PC driven RPGS. I myself dont actually think of DAO as a pure RPG, a fun game but one which belongs to a different sub genre.
Unfortunately in this day and age, the plague of CGI is affecting games, movies you name it.
I hope that Bioware can produce a great product without too much of said product being influenced by their distributor.
As an afterthought at least i still have Drakensang to play if DA2 turns out to be garbage.

[euramer1]

I feel that the debate on these original good questions has been sidetracked by the first remark of the moderator: DA was remaining true to a certain D&D spirit with a certain level identification to the main characters because you had choice of customisation (race, fighting style...) and length which permits you again to play it the way you liked it (in my case I try all the quests). DA2 is a simplified game, console oriented.

[Monica83]

For this im a bit worryed.. Im not interested in simplified games.. I have a console too but i don't use it very much i prefear pc games.. This because console games tend to be much many action oriented and the story its static or is weak.. I played a lot of final fantasy game.. and all works in the same way you can't decide nothing you can't explore a world all dialogues are predefined as characters.. And the story never sway a lot.. Console are much more arcade oriented.. i think the problem is how i approach rpgs.. For some people they are just games.. For me its a true passion like read books or paint.. I will hope dragon age 2 will have a great story.. but i hope also in the future bioware returns to make game where you can decide who you are.. Your race your classes. and evrything.. I loved origins story

[TMZuk]

Maconbar wrote...

We should all be afraid because change is coming to the world.

Change is fine when it is change for the better.

-Removing our choise in race is not better. Especially not when the only reason is that you then are able to make a voiced protagonist.

-Removing our choise in background is not better.

-Removing our choise in what weapons we wish our characters to use is not better. Especially not when the reason is ... animations!

-Having a quadzillion loose ends dangling in the air after the first game, and then skip it and move on to the next is not better.

-Leaving a game unstable, and not properly patched, and then move on to the next is not better.

I'm a customer and I want a product that gives me what I want. I am not buying something hoping  it will do so, when all the information I have received indicates it will not.

I just played LotSB in ME2, and entertaining as it was, it was an interactive chase movie, not an RPG what so ever. That is where I see DA2 is headed. Cool remarks thrown from Shepard to T'soni and back, but it was not MY remarks. I didn't play these characters, I merely watched them.

Modifié par TMZuk, 13 septembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[avatoc]

I have to say that removing our options to create our own character and the abillity to make our own story, well more or less, is something im sceptical against, and if they are taking such a direction why not place the story amongst the qunaris since they are the ones that haven't gotten that much time to shine, ingame, and also since thier new models looks badass

[Lumikki]

In my opinion, problem isn't simplifyed or action based. Problem is more like limited and pre-define.



We aren't just reading book or watching movie, we are interacting with the game to define what directions it goes. If it doesn't matter what you choose or do or possiblities are very limited, what's the point of playing. Little like some strategy game would tell story, but pre-set that player has to lose this battle, so it's not winnable. What's the point of playing if the result is pre-define. If character customation is very limited and pre-define, what's the point of customation. If character skill and talent development is pre-define then what's the point of choosing. Basicly sayed, if there isn't enough option, players will feel like there is not enoung "freedom" to be what they want to be.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Worried isn't the right word. Concerned would be more like it. I like adventure games like Zelda well enough, but I think it's important to have the two genre's separated. It's the same reason I don't want DA to turn into Mass Effect. Having games that are different from each other offer greater variety to gamers.



That said, I'm not against BioWare taking influence from adventure games. But I wouldn't want it to become the main gameplay mechanic like shooting is in Mass Effect 2. They did more than just take influence from Gears of War, they pretty much shamelessly ripped them off. I wouldn't want to see that happen in any future Dragon Age titles.

[Monica83]

indeed mass effect is mass effect and i don't want they made a dragon effect thing

[OriginsIsBest]

Do you want to hear a joke?

Dragon age 2 - RPG of the year.

[Monica83]

LOL

[The Masked Rog]

Guys could you please read the developer thread where question about the RPG/Combat system are asked? It is not that different from DA:O. Auto attack confirmed in both consoles or PC if you wish. Inventory. Chances to hit driven by stats not animations. Combat is more responsive. If anything this is looking to be a better RPG than DA:O was.

[Monica83]

we readed it and manu of us don't like what we read... All sounds static.. Warrior have alf ability removed and can't use dual or bows.. This is a smack in face for the roleplay.. In Dao you can build your character a way better you aren't forced to see warriors as muscolar one.. They changed it to keep the class distinct but in the same way they made them static and.. in terms of roleplay they don't give any valid explanation..So in this is not better is whorse for roleplay

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

we readed it and manu of us don't like what we read... All sounds static.. Warrior have alf ability removed and can't use dual or bows.. This is a smack in face for the roleplay.. In Dao you can build your character a way better you aren't forced to see warriors as muscolar one.. They changed it to keep the class distinct but in the same way they made them static and.. in terms of roleplay they don't give any valid explanation..So in this is not better is whorse for roleplay

Ok. They should just come up with a new story and keep everything else the same. No new graphics. No better animations. Nothing. Just the same thing over and over. Pokemon made quite the success with it. Roleplay wise it makes perfect sense to have the warriors be SnS or Two Handed. The Warriors you could build with Dual Wield really were more of a finesse type of warrior, meaning a rogue. You can still make them, but now they'll be what they are in a roleplay fashion. Rogues.

Frankly though, it doesn't matter. It allows us to get more distinct classes (very good) and they said you can still make thugish rogues or more lightweight warriors. So there is room for roleplay in character building. And now we have the dialogue wheel and a voiced protagonist which since he cames from a single Origin allow the game to be much more focused in roleplaying him, giving more sencible choices for humans, instead of generic ones which rarely account for the race you are. Pure roleplay win.