1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Its not getting streamlined because everyone wants it simple, I don't think. It is getting streamlined because the market, currently, demands high production value in general and stories also require high production quality. Because of this it limits the options in games. Not out of the lack of desire to have more options, but due to costs prohibiting it.

RPGs anymore are probably the most expensive to make and probably generates the least amount of return for the amount invested(outside of perhaps MMO's, but their RPG aspects are completely different obviously). The only way it will change is if the market opens up, imo, for a P2P, single player, RPG game.

I also am not a fan of the Diablo style Mad, but I understand why it is so well recieved, so I don't think there is anything wrong with it, outside of stealing a portion of the market.

As for Planscape Torment better then BG? I think BG was the better story, but Planscape is the better setting, specifically for video games, imo.

As for consoles, they did not create the problem many forum goers complain about, video-games increased popularity is what "hurt" it in the sense most of you are talking about. Higher expectations and increased production value expectations(to the tune of Hollywood or bigger type budgets) is what is hurting customization/options/control in games.

Modifié par Meltemph, 30 septembre 2010 - 11:40 .

[Bryy_Miller]

By the way, Gaider was quoted once as saying that they could not afford to make small-scale games like Baldur's Gate anymore. I mean, let's face it, the company has grown. And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 30 septembre 2010 - 11:33 .

[Meltemph]

The Civ series was quite streamlined with Civ 4.

Yes, but only in a good way, imo. While I loved Civ2(specially Call to Power) it and 3 definitely had micro-management issues. However, the real depth of the game, imo, is still there.

[Meltemph]

And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

And let us not forget, in this current market, independent studios have all the disadvantages, outside of freedom of control.

[Bryy_Miller]

Meltemph wrote...

And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

And let us not forget, in this current market, independent studios have all the disadvantages, outside of freedom of control.

You're only independent until you get bought. 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

By the way, Gaider was quoted once as saying that they could not afford to make small-scale games like Baldur's Gate anymore. I mean, let's face it, the company has grown. And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

To be completely honest, the whole Elevation Partners deal screams so many shades of shady to begin with but thats a completely different topic for a different thread.

[Meltemph]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

And let us not forget, in this current market, independent studios have all the disadvantages, outside of freedom of control.

You're only independent until you get bought. 

I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure I missed what you are trying to say...  I was not implying BW was independent, only adding that independent studios are at a pretty big disadvantage, currently.

[Riona45]

dama666 wrote...

I saw a Gameplay, and I have to said: What the hell its that?? Thats no Dragon Age! its Dinasty Warriors in the Dragon Age universe. Really Sad to se the fall of he Rol games

Yes, well, *I* was certain it was Mass Effect!  Or...or God of War!

[Riona45]

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

]I seem to recall BG2 selling pretty well despite being a more hardcore RPG, but that was before the industry wide shift of catering to the lowest common denominator. There's absolutely no logic behind saying a game needs to be streamlined and stripped down to the levels ME2 was to sell well. 

Hmm... I guess I need an insulting acronym for you folks. I'll let Bryy come up with one.

Aww, come on.  "Ballroom Dancers' Federation?"  That's not insulting!

As for BG2, it was:

A)  Not actually all that difficult.

  Stripped down and simplified from the AD&D rules it was adapted from, to be sure.

Modifié par Riona45, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:22 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Riona45 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

]I seem to recall BG2 selling pretty well despite being a more hardcore RPG, but that was before the industry wide shift of catering to the lowest common denominator. There's absolutely no logic behind saying a game needs to be streamlined and stripped down to the levels ME2 was to sell well. 

Hmm... I guess I need an insulting acronym for you folks. I'll let Bryy come up with one.

Aww, come on.  "Ballroom Dancers' Federation?"  That's not insulting!

As for BG2, it was:

A)  Not actually all that difficult.

  Stripped down and simplified from the AD&D rules it was adapted from, to be sure.

I think whats more telling is the people responding to the term are exactly the people I expected to. Go figure.
There's a drastic difference between making something work within the confines of a CRPG and out right stripping and gutting systems to dumb a series down. Saying the two are the same is a pretty huge reach.

[Meltemph]

There's a drastic difference between making something work within the confines of a CRPG and out right stripping and gutting systems to dumb a series down.

Except all the CRPG's that rely on old school CRPG's rules have technical problems all over the place. I mean, I enjoyed them to, but I remember how much a pain in the ass a lot of the system was.

[Riona45]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I think whats more telling is the people responding to the term are exactly the people I expected to. Go figure.

It's not a term, it's an acronym.

There's a drastic difference between making something work within the confines of a CRPG and out right stripping and gutting systems to dumb a series down. Saying the two are the same is a pretty huge reach.

Yeah, whatever that means.

Modifié par Riona45, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:38 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

There's a drastic difference between making something work within the confines of a CRPG and out right stripping and gutting systems to dumb a series down.

Except all the CRPG's that rely on old school CRPG's rules have technical problems all over the place. I mean, I enjoyed them to, but I remember how much a pain in the ass a lot of the system was.

If you're talking about adopting D&D rules, then sure, they made compromises alot of times back in those days. Trying to equate that as a valid reason for gutting RPG elements altogether though is a different thing entirely.

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Of course you have control.

No, you don't.  This has been my primary complaint about ME from the beginning.

But you do, you really do. Like I said originally, "maybe not as much as you would prefer," but you do. The game doesn't choose your dialogue choices for you, does it? You choose whether to encourage or discourage romances, save or abandon the Council, save or destroy the Rachni, and lots more examples more mundane. If you had no control, there'd be no dialogue wheel. The whole point of the dialogue wheel is to let you make choices.

Don't confuse "not as much control as I would like" with "no control." This is central to my whole argument. Just because you want more doesn't mean there is nothing there.

The whole point of the oft-maligned dialogue wheel is to provide you the ability to make choices.

If that wer ethe case it would let you do that.

But it doesn't.  You don't know what's going to happen as a result of your selection, thereforey ou cannot reasonably be said to have chosen it.

You may not know the specifics, but the idea that that's the same as not making a choice is absurd to me. I can fire a gun in the air; not knowing where it will land does not mean I haven't done it. As inaccurate as the ME paraphrases can be, they're not completely random. You still have an idea of the way you're shaping the course of the conversation, especially considering some of them are color-coded. The differences are mainly cosmetic when they happen. They might not be exactly what you'd like to have said, but for the most part, they get across some workable idea of the intent.

Besides (and I hesitate to bring this up again), you could use that same argument in DAO. You know the words, but you don't know the tone. I know you have your own system for compensating for this, but that's (obviously) not part of the game.

You are not forced to choose anything, nor to develop relationships with people you may not want to.

Yes you are.  You're forced to do whatever the consequences of the wheel selection is.

Note the bolded word. Selection. That is choice right there.

Again, if we were allowed to choose those consequences (Shepard's lines and actions) then we'd be roleplaying.  But we're not.  The obfuscatory nature of the wheel prevents it.

Inaccurate paraphrasis or design oversights don't change the fact that you do have choices in those areas.

That is exactly what they do.

I'd buy what you're saying if your choices were only labeled by numbers or even left blank. But you do have some idea of what Shepard is going to say or do. Very little in some cases, yes, and it was pretty bad at times. But let's not treat hyperbole as fact now.

An uninformed choice isn't a choice.

Yes, it really is. It's an uninformed choice. If I am on a game show and I choose to wager all my winnings against whatever is behind Door #2, even though I don't know what's there, it doesn't mean I didn't make a choice.

Modifié par SirOccam, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:42 .

[Meltemph]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

There's a drastic difference between making something work within the confines of a CRPG and out right stripping and gutting systems to dumb a series down.

Except all the CRPG's that rely on old school CRPG's rules have technical problems all over the place. I mean, I enjoyed them to, but I remember how much a pain in the ass a lot of the system was.

If you're talking about adopting D&D rules, then sure, they made compromises alot of times back in those days. Trying to equate that as a valid reason for gutting RPG elements altogether though is a different thing entirely.

Well I agree taking things away for the sake of taking them away is not a good idea, but there definitely needed a change.  And as for the CRPG's that didn't follow the rules, I cant really think of one that was not a mathematically broken in terms of rule sets.  Obviously, you had more freedom in those, though, they were much cheaper and the production value on them were a lot lower.

[Morroian]

Meltemph wrote...

Yes, but only in a good way, imo. While I loved Civ2(specially Call to Power) it and 3 definitely had micro-management issues. However, the real depth of the game, imo, is still there.

To bring it back to DA2 I feel the changes made won't impact on the depth so long as the paraphrasing is accurate, the voice acting good and the tactical view of combat is retained. They're not taking out features so much as refining whats already there.

I do feel for DA3 though (assuming it is made) that they should look at the limitations of the engine and try and go back to a fully isometric view like DAO had. I'd also like BW to increase the tactical depth more.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

There's a drastic difference between making something work within the confines of a CRPG and out right stripping and gutting systems to dumb a series down.

Except all the CRPG's that rely on old school CRPG's rules have technical problems all over the place. I mean, I enjoyed them to, but I remember how much a pain in the ass a lot of the system was.

If you're talking about adopting D&D rules, then sure, they made compromises alot of times back in those days. Trying to equate that as a valid reason for gutting RPG elements altogether though is a different thing entirely.

Well I agree taking things away for the sake of taking them away is not a good idea, but there definitely needed a change.  And as for the CRPG's that didn't follow the rules, I cant really think of one that was not a mathematically broken in terms of rule sets.  Obviously, you had more freedom in those, though, they were much cheaper and the production value on them were a lot lower.

Well sure, not every game needed to be this high production cinematic prescripted movie experience back then either. It's debatable if what they're doing now tells the story better or just ends up being more flashy for the sake of it being "cool".

[Meltemph]

You might be right, but everything comes at a cost, it always is a game of give and take. And I think the cons of high production value is very evident. Your customization, choices of character, and less content for the sake of quality(observed as a reality or not). I agree that they are not what they used to be, but I honestly, don't really know if that is a bad thing, just different.



I would be more then happy if the industry did both, but it is quite obvious, that the industry looks at old school CRPG's as a loss or a minor profit, otherwise the demand would be filled, one would think.



Although, I also understand I see it differently then those like you and Mad, because I never felt like any of the characters in any video-game were mine. You never truly, to me, had any real control of your character, even with games where you make them, literally, from scratch.

[Bryy_Miller]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

By the way, Gaider was quoted once as saying that they could not afford to make small-scale games like Baldur's Gate anymore. I mean, let's face it, the company has grown. And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

To be completely honest, the whole Elevation Partners deal screams so many shades of shady to begin with but thats a completely different topic for a different thread.

I thought I was supposed to be the one blindly defending BioWare. I was not informed of this role reversal.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 01 octobre 2010 - 01:42 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

You might be right, but everything comes at a cost, it always is a game of give and take. And I think the cons of high production value is very evident. Your customization, choices of character, and less content for the sake of quality(observed as a reality or not). I agree that they are not what they used to be, but I honestly, don't really know if that is a bad thing, just different.

I would be more then happy if the industry did both, but it is quite obvious, that the industry looks at old school CRPG's as a loss or a minor profit, otherwise the demand would be filled, one would think.

Although, I also understand I see it differently then those like you and Mad, because I never felt like any of the characters in any video-game were mine. You never truly, to me, had any real control of your character, even with games where you make them, literally, from scratch.

DAO was by all intents and purposes an old school RPG that sold very well, so I somehow have a hard time believing games of its nature cannot do well when they actually get marketing. And we all know EA has deep enough pockets to make sure of that.

Like I've said a few times, I have no issues what so ever with them refining combat a bit, as long as it doesn't delve into feeling like its either a click fest or hack n slash style where pause and play and tactics at least on the pc side of things becomes useless.

I'd also argue, that regardless if paraphrasing at the end of the day is still a choice technically, its a pretty poor way to go about it because it further devalues the player making an educated choice about how he/she wants to play a particular character. It also takes any idea of using one's imagination right out of the equation, which is really disappointing. Are people really so lazy nowadays that they really need every bit of dialog spoken out loud to them? Really?

Again I'm completely baffled why fans of those types of games should have to conform if the sales are still attainable. Not every RPG from here on out needs to follow Mass Effect 2 imo.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

By the way, Gaider was quoted once as saying that they could not afford to make small-scale games like Baldur's Gate anymore. I mean, let's face it, the company has grown. And EA certainly did not put a gun to Ray M.'s head in order to complete the merger.

To be completely honest, the whole Elevation Partners deal screams so many shades of shady to begin with but thats a completely different topic for a different thread.

I thought I was supposed to be the one blindly defending BioWare. I was not informed of this role reversal.

How that comment could be considered blindly defending anyone is beyond me. Mind explaining? Not that I consider either BG title "small scale" to begin with. Unless you're talking in the sense of not being a fully voice movie production type of deal.

[Meltemph]

 DAO was by all intents and purposes an old school RPG that sold very well,

It sold 3 million(Which is decent, but nothing special, specially for how high it scored)?  For how long it was in development, I would call that, ok(at best), in terms of real profit from the product.

so I somehow have a hard time believing games of its nature cannot do well when they actually get marketing. And we all know EA has deep enough pockets to make sure of that. 

Like I've said a few times, I have no issues what so ever with them refining combat a bit, as long as it doesn't delve into feeling like its either a click fest or hack n slash style where pause and play and tactics at least on the pc side of things becomes useless.

I don't, personally, care one way or another "how" the game-play mechanics work, as long as they are fun to me, so I cant really comment much there, specially since I like just about every genre out there.

I'd also argue, that regardless if paraphrasing at the end of the day is still a choice technically, its a pretty poor way to go about it because it further devalues the player making an educated choice about how he/she wants to play a particular character.

I personally don't play video-games to go too far in terms of "pretending I'm the character", but I also read a lot of books and tend, rather, to have a book to use my imagination in-depth like you are referring.  To me video-games should be what I imagined realized in video form.

It also takes any idea of using one's imagination right out of the equation, which is really disappointing. Are people really so lazy nowadays that they really need every bit of dialog spoken out loud to them? Really?

You just can't help yourself from insulting people who play video-games for different reasons then you, can you?  I don't play video-games to use my imagination, in at least the sense you are referring to.  IMO, that is the job of a book.  Video games should bring to life those imaginations, not make me use my imagination to fill the voids.  But I obviously play video games(at least RPG's) for a different reason then you.  That does not make me or anyone else lazy, just different(novel concept, I know).

Again I'm completely baffled why fans of those types of games should have to conform if the sales are still attainable. Not every RPG from here on out needs to follow Mass Effect 2 imo. 

The "sales" may be attainable, but we on the outside have no idea if it is profitable, one thing we do know, though, is RPG's on average have the highest costs.

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 octobre 2010 - 01:57 .

[DespiertaLosNinos]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I'd also argue, that regardless if paraphrasing at the end of the day is still a choice technically, its a pretty poor way to go about it because it further devalues the player making an educated choice about how he/she wants to play a particular character. It also takes any idea of using one's imagination right out of the equation, which is really disappointing. Are people really so lazy nowadays that they really need every bit of dialog spoken out loud to them? Really?

It is honestly really difficult for me to feel one way or the other about Hawke being voiced in DA2.  Without first hand experience I feel like I'm doing guess work.  Yeah I could use past experiences as a guide but even still the dev team is different from ME2's as is the writing team (the same team that made DA:O which I enjoyed more than any game in recent memory).  Couple that with the (debatable) information that Hawke will be less defined as a person that Shepard, and I really don't know what to make of it.  All I can say is I'm hoping for the best.  Worst case scenario for me is it figuratively collects dust on my HDD.  As for the voice acting and laziness, I really don't think there is a through line.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

DespiertaLosNinos wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I'd also argue, that regardless if paraphrasing at the end of the day is still a choice technically, its a pretty poor way to go about it because it further devalues the player making an educated choice about how he/she wants to play a particular character. It also takes any idea of using one's imagination right out of the equation, which is really disappointing. Are people really so lazy nowadays that they really need every bit of dialog spoken out loud to them? Really?

It is honestly really difficult for me to feel one way or the other about Hawke being voiced in DA2.  Without first hand experience I feel like I'm doing guess work.  Yeah I could use past experiences as a guide but even still the dev team is different from ME2's as is the writing team (the same team that made DA:O which I enjoyed more than any game in recent memory).  Couple that with the (debatable) information that Hawke will be less defined as a person that Shepard, and I really don't know what to make of it.  All I can say is I'm hoping for the best.  Worst case scenario for me is it figuratively collects dust on my HDD.  As for the voice acting and laziness, I really don't think there is a through line.

No prolly not, but at the end of the day I question why the PC needs to be voiced at all. At any rate good post and I actually agree with what you're saying, even if I feel it may affect my overall enjoyment of the game, I'm hoping for the best.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

DAO was by all intents and purposes an old school RPG that sold very well, so I somehow have a hard time believing games of its nature cannot do well when they actually get marketing. And we all know EA has deep enough pockets to make sure of that.

LIke I said before I'd dispute how old school it actually was. It was just as much kotor in fantasy clothing as BG.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I'd also argue, that regardless if paraphrasing at the end of the day is still a choice technically, its a pretty poor way to go about it because it further devalues the player making an educated choice about how he/she wants to play a particular character.

It only devalues it if the paraphrasing is inaccurate, and it sounds like the DA team are working on ways to increase the the role playing depth as much as possible within that system with the tone icons and the personality fluctuations depending on the dominant tone adopted.  IMHO it has the potential to be more interesting than the DAO system.