250 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I love rhetorical nitpicking, but Bioware's line between a "what is an RPG" thread and a "is DA2 what I would call an RPG" thread is really, really, really thin.  

How are people supposed to engage in a debate on a topic when they can't even agree on terminology?  Heck, defining terms was one of the first things I learned how to do when writing a position paper.

The trick is to simply not have that debate. Whether DA2 is or isn't an RPG isn't relevant to any serious question, like "Should I buy DA2?" or "Is DA2 a good game?".

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Hmm, no? It is still selectable on the radial menu.

Having to trigger it manually each time prevents it from being an auto-attack, doesn't it?

I'd love to be able to let all the characters act according to their tactics all at once and only occasionally given them direction.  I'm often caught off-guard in DAO when the character I have selected finishes with one target and then just stands there without selecting another one (even if he's getting hit).

[upsettingshorts]

Nozybidaj wrote...
Well, its fine so long as it casts things in a positive manner.  Once things take a turn in casting a negative view, then it is off topic.  See....

I don't buy that argument either, really.

Just the distinction appears to be rather arbitrary.  Even if the discussion veers totally into the realm of "what is an RPG" the fact is that it remains implicitly about Dragon Age 2 and any other potential Bioware sequels.  Just like if a debate over health care reform veered into a philosophical debate on the role of government it's still implicitly a discussion about health care.

AlanC9 wrote...
The trick is to simply not have that debate. Whether DA2 is or isn't an RPG isn't relevant to any serious question,
like "Should I buy DA2?" or "Is DA2 a good game?".

Then you could lock more than half the threads on these boards.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd love to be able to let all the characters act according to their tactics all at once and only
occasionally given them direction.  I'm often caught off-guard in DAO when the character I have selected finishes with one target and thenjust stands there without selecting another one (even if he's getting hit).

Agreed.  With mods that opened up a ton of tactics slots for characters - without the need to unlock them - I found this to be (mostly) very achievable as long as you didn't give the mage any AOE spells it could use unexpectedly.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:08 .

[Nozybidaj]

AlanC9 wrote...

The trick is to simply not have that debate. Whether DA2 is or isn't an RPG isn't relevant to any serious question, like "Should I buy DA2?" or "Is DA2 a good game?".

Not relevant?  Wow.  Talk about the pinnacle of hand waving.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Having to trigger it manually each time prevents it from being an auto-attack, doesn't it?

Mike specifically said auto-attack, which makes me think toggle. I could be wrong, though; I don't care enough about consoles to pay attention.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Only if you take a binary view of realism (i.e. if a feature has any exclusion, no matter the degree, with how it would be in relaity, then it is not realistic).

This argument, I believe, is relative. In comparison with the 100 item list, the inventory is somewhat more realistic, because there are plausible restrictions (only weapons you can carry & no armour swap) along with an implausible feature (top secret 1 of a kind weapons available at random lockers).

It was my complete set of weapons, available at remote locations.

It was exactly like the ME shared inventory with regard to weapons.  The only difference was that you could only access it at specific locations in the game.  ME2's weapon inventory was simply a more-restrictive version of ME's inventory; it was in no way more realistic.

Yes. There is a significant issue when you rely too strongly on the origin as a character concept, because the game is not very accomodating to it.

It's surprisin that DO failed in this way, as the entire Origins system seemed to be designed to encourage exactly that.  I didn't really care how the game was designed, though, so I played the characters I wanted to play, and they all worked.  Only when I decided to try something based on an origin it didn't work.

I'd previously played a Mage who viewed the Tower as a Prison, and held that the primary responsibility of any prisoner was to escape.  But as soon as Ostagar happened, he had escaped, so that no longer constrained him.

When I tried to play a city elf who held the same basic principles, those principles needed to be modified slightly to remain coherent within the origin (it couldn't just be her trying to escape, as single elves or inidividual familes were allowed to leave if they had the means - so instead she viewed human oppression generally as the prison that needed breaking), and the game does fairly often (starting right as Ostagar) fail to allow a response that suits her.

Though I find the city elf to be a character who most easily would identify as a Grey Warden - it is potentialy a better life than the shtetel, compared to say the young Cousland, who was sorrounded in rumours of being heir and living comfortably (who really is railroaded with some of the potential dialogue options).

I think the Dwarf Commoner works even better, but for mostly the same reasons.

Oh, of course. I meant this not as an in-game argument (because we can clearly point out, as you did, the sloth demon may well be bad at his job) but rather as a meta-level argument about the design the writers had in mind for the PC.

I deny that knowledge of the design the writers intended is ever possible, so I never would have considered this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Agreed.  With mods that opened up a ton of tactics slots for characters - without the need to unlock them - I found this to be (mostly) very achievable as long as you didn't give the mage any AOE spells it could use unexpectedly.

I played a character who stayed out of comabt all the time, so the actual combatants were able to act entirely on their own.  But when I switched back to a more typical character who actually fought things, I found the lack of reaction from the selected character really annoying.

AlanC9 wrote...

Mike specifically said auto-attack, which makes me think toggle. I could be wrong, though; I don't care enough about consoles to pay attention.

Ditto.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:17 .

[AlanC9]

Nozybidaj wrote...


Not relevant?  Wow.  Talk about the pinnacle of hand waving.

Well, it does depend on your definition of "serious." Some folks take the "what is an RPG" topic very seriously. I find the topic interesting without finding it serious.

But if someone won't like DA2 because it doesn't have whatever he thinks an RPG has that DA2 won't have, he can just talk about those things directly rather than bringing up the intermediate question. Just say why you hate the dialog wheel, for instance, without bringing up the pseudo-justification that you don't like having a dialog wheel because it means that the game isn't an RPG. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, it does depend on your definition of "serious." Some folks take the "what is an RPG" topic very seriously. I find the topic interesting without finding it serious.

But if someone won't like DA2 because it doesn't have whatever he thinks an RPG has that DA2 won't have, he can just talk about those things directly rather than bringing up the intermediate question. Just say why you hate the dialog wheel, for instance, without bringing up the pseudo-justification that you don't like having a dialog wheel because it means that the game isn't an RPG. 

Exactly.

If DA2 lacks some feature that you think is vital to your enjoyment of the game, then we can talk about that and actually understand each other without it always descending into a semantic argument about labels.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It was my complete set of weapons, available at remote locations.

It was exactly like the ME shared inventory with regard to weapons.  The only difference was that you could only access it at specific locations in the game.  ME2's weapon inventory was simply a more-restrictive version of ME's inventory; it was in no way more realistic.

How would you have liked the ME2 system with no weapons lockers except at your base?

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
ME2's weapon inventory was simply a more-restrictive version of ME's inventory; it was in no way more realistic.

It was more realistic in the sense that Shepard and his  team were able to choose between firearms with different performance characteristics that could actually be described as going beyond a simple progressive scale of worse-to-better.

However in DA2 the notion of progression as opposed to variety makes more sense given that it is not a twitch game.  Firearms work differently and while I don't think the entire notion of progression should be tossed out, variety in weapon performance leads to different tactical styles and adds to the realism of gameplay. 

That being said, even FPS Battlefield Bad Company 2 has more weapon progression - you unlock more and better weapons via online play - than Mass Effect 2.  So I'd like to  see a blend of ME1 (weapons get better) and ME2 (weapons of the same type are actually different from one another) in ME3 and games like DA2.

But in RPGs like DAO/DA2 or older ones like those based on the Infinity engine - your protagonist is going to wield a scimitar the same way as a gladius, which isn't really possible, but since RPG mechanics really only account for things mathematically, like DPS or chance to hit, those kinds of differences are immaterial.  In a twitch based game, they're of significant importance - hence why I prefer ME2's system to ME1's.

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, it does depend on your definition of "serious." Some folks take the "what is an RPG" topic very seriously. I
find the topic interesting without finding it serious.

But if someone won't like DA2 because it doesn't have whatever he thinks an RPGhas that DA2 won't have, he can just talk about those things directly rather than bringing up the intermediate question. Just say why you hatethe dialog wheel, for instance, without bringing up the pseudo-justification that you don't like having a dialog wheel because it means that the game isn't an RPG. 

A fair distinction.  I agree.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

How would you have liked the ME2 system with no weapons lockers except at your base?

Would I have liked it?  No.

Would it have been more realistic than ME's system?  In some ways, yes.

Would I have liked it more than ME's system?  Yes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It was more realistic in the sense that Shepard and his  team were able to choose between firearms with different performance characteristics that could actually be described as going beyond a simple progressive scale of worse-to-better.

Except you didn't know what those characteristics were, so saying you could choose based on those characteristics is debateable.

They needed to quantify things like heatsink capacity and rate of fire, range and damage.  Then we could choose.

ME's system failed party because, as you point out, if one weapon was better than another it was better in every way.  ME did a much better job with armour, I thought, than weapons.  One suit of armour might be way better at tech/biotic protection, but have worse shields.  That was a real choice.

But in RPGs like DAO/DA2 or older ones like those based on the Infinity engine - your protagonist is going to wield a scimitar the same way as a gladius, which isn't really possible, but since RPG mechanics really only account for things mathematically, like DPS or chance to hit, those kinds of differences are immaterial.

They don't ahve to be, though.  Different damage types having different levels of success against different types of armour would go a long way to imroving weapon variety in DAO (or similar games).  Recall how in BG skeletons were highly resistant to piercing and slashing damage.  If you didn't have a hammer or a mace, you were in for a long fight.

In a twitch based game, they're of significant importance - hence why I prefer ME2's system to ME1's.

In a twitch-based game, I find the combat boring at best, and an unpleasant chore at worst.  I find I don't care how they work.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Except you didn't know what those characteristics were, so saying you could choose based on those characteristics is debateable.

They didn't list the stats, no - and even Battlefield Bad Company 2 does this in a general sense - but saying I couldn't choose would mean that as a player I couldn't tell the difference between weapons after having used them is just silly.  The Vindicator and the Revenant are wildly different, there was just not much in the GUI that told me so.  I had to use them to find out.  

During my first playthrough I'd always try out new weapons as I came across them, and unlike in linear-progression system like ME1's, I often went back to the previous selection, or decided that one weapon was better for some things - another for others - based on the experience of using it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
ME's system failed party because, as you point out, if one weapon was better than another it was better in every way.  ME did a much better job with armour, I thought, than weapons.  One suit of armour might be way better at tech/biotic protection, but have worse shields.  That was a real choice.

Yeah, there was some variety in armor.  I mostly select armor in ME2 based on what looks cool.  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They don't ahve to be, though.  Different damage types having different levels of success against different types of armour would go a long way to imroving weapon variety in DAO (or similar games).  Recall how in BG skeletons were highly resistant to piercing and slashing damage.  If you didn't have a hammer or a mace, you were in for a long fight.

That's a good point.  Still, that's an abstraction based on the idea that if you tried to pierce a skeleton with a gladius nothing would happen, but if you swung a massive hammer at them you'd crush a bone or two.  It'd be interesting to see how such an abstraction could work with firearms though.  How could you mathematically represent the performance differences between a Revenant and a Vindicator in a non-twitch RPG?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In a twitch-based game, I find the combat boring at best, and an unpleasant chore at worst.  I find I don't care how they work.

Your preferences are your own.  Personally I like both types of games, but if a game is going to be twitch I'd much rather it be like Mass Effect 2 than Mass Effect 1 for reasons stated above.

Both ME1 and ME2 made the conscious attempt to introduce shooter mechanics.  The former basically failed, the latter succeeded.  In short my point is that if you're going to blend genres in the first place, it's important to realize the little things that make the "other" genre work, and ME2 did a better job of that - though it still doesn't stand up to the better shooters out there even though I think it could even without further "encroachment" on RPG elements.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:48 .

[Addai]

CommanderNuetral wrote...

Stop being so afraid of change.

I think if I read this phrase one more time, my head might explode.  Either that or I'll have to invent a drinking game, and since I read the forums from work a lot, that would be a bad thing too.

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
They didn't list the stats, no - and even Battlefield Bad Company 2 does this in a general sense - but saying I couldn't choose would mean that as a player I couldn't tell the difference between weapons after having used them is just silly.  The Vindicator and the Revenant are wildly different, there was just not much in the GUI that told me so.  I had to use them to find out.  

During my first playthrough I'd always try out new weapons as I came across them, and unlike in linear-progression system like ME1's, I often went back to the previous selection, or decided that one weapon was better for some things - another for others - based on the experience of using it.

Note that not every player felt this way -- the OP, for instance, didn't get it, and always used the newest weapon. But this is an argument for better combat feedback rather than an inventory issue.

[upsettingshorts]

AlanC9 wrote...
Note that not every player felt this way -- the OP, for instance, didn't get it, and always used the newest weapon. But this is an argument for better combat feedback rather than an inventory issue.

Yeah, the differences in weapons really needed to have been expressed in the GUI.  They're there, I'm not making them up - the differences can be found in the game files.  Showing them in the GUI seems like a logical and appropriate step to take.  Something like:

Damage per shot:
Accuracy:
Recoil:
Rate of fire:
Magazine and reserve:

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 06:22 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Note that not every player felt this way -- the OP, for instance, didn't get it, and always used the newest weapon. But this is an argument for better combat feedback rather than an inventory issue.

Yeah, the differences in weapons really needed to have been expressed in the GUI.  They're there, I'm not making them up - the differences can be found in the game files.  Showing them in the GUI seems like a logical and appropriate step to take.  Something like:

It's not just the differences aren't shown; the descriptions of items not only make no suggestion such differences would exist, with characteristics of the weapons being very much copy and paste for each type... but go as far as state plainly "Upgrade from the (model of the weapon you start with)" in most cases.

It makes me think that any possible differences that may make the beginning weapon preferable over the latter one were very much unintended, in the sense perhaps devs were viewing these items (and their advantages or overall functionality) different than some players do. As far as what the game tells you goes, starter weapon are to be replaced and very much forgotten as soon as you obtain the more advanced model.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...
It makes me think that any possible differences that may make the beginning weapon preferable over the latter one were very much unintended, in the sense perhaps devs were viewing these items (and their advantages or overall functionality) different than some players do. As far as what the game tells you goes, starter weapon are to be replaced and very much forgotten as soon as you obtain the more advanced model.

While in some cases the direct "upgrades" were superior, such as the Carnifex Hand Cannon - examples like the semi-automatic sniper rifle might not have been depending on your preferences.

Mostly though I'm not going to defend the way the weapon choices were presented in ME2, as it was mostly an inconsistent mess.  I'm just glad that a choice between weapon performance existed for those of us who were able to recognize it.  They need to do a better job of making those differences more explicit to make the variety more accessible to every player.

[Davasar]

The bottom line is: to a greater or lesser extent, Brent Knowles left because the direction the game (DA2), and the company had changed to something he could not work for anymore.

Of course, dont take my word for it, read it yourself:

http://blog.brentkno...08-summer-2009/

When your lead designer bails out, then something is truely wrong.

Note this here, from the blog:

I did some high level design for a potential new project but a few months later I realized that, given cutbacks and other things that it really seemed unlikely that the project I had been ‘assigned’ to was ever going to materialize. I can’t/won’t go into any other details other than to point to an old entry I made about this and reiterate: “I’m not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same company. ”

This man worked for 10 years for Bioware. He was there.

Any apologists still up for the notion that Bioware "is still the same as they ever were" argument?

Got over it.  EA has them now, and will do what they want with them.  If that means make lesser games in order to shuck out more product to be bought up by unexamining hordes, then thats what will happen.

The man who worked there 10 years has just shot your argument down. Completely.

Bioware has changed folks, and not for the better when a great designer like Brent Knowles feels he has to quit because of those changes.

Modifié par Davasar, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:18 .

[upsettingshorts]

Davasar wrote...

When your lead designer bails out, then something is truely wrong.

Depends.

Davasar wrote...

Any apologists still up for the notion that Bioware "is still the same as they ever were" argument?

The man who worked there 10 years has just shot your argument down. Completely.

I'm a fan of the direction Bioware games are going and I have never once used such an argument to justify my opinion.  

I take that incredibly dangerous effort to explain why I like the change.  Tough to imagine, I know.

Davasar wrote...

Bioware has changed folks, and not for the better

Nice opinion you have there.  Shame you didn't qualify it as such.

Davasar wrote...

If that means make lesser games in order to shuck out more product to be bought up by unexamining hordes, then thatswhat will happen.

There is a term for people who seem to think that others are incapable of honestly arriving at different conclusions after thinking critically about the same facts.  It's not a flattering term.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:28 .

[Morroian]

Davasar wrote...

Bioware has changed folks, and not for the better when a great designer like Brent Knowles feels he has to quit because of those changes.

If you're going to run with that argument they'changed' when they did Kotor. As for him leaving indicating something being wrong its not like Knowles left in the middle of development, he left pretty much at the beginning or at the end of DAO not in the middle. To me it sounds like some of the stuff he was worried about like the tactical combat is still there anyway.

Modifié par Morroian, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:59 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Davasar wrote...

The bottom line is: to a greater or lesser extent, Brent Knowles left because the direction the game (DA2), and the company had changed to something he could not work for anymore.

Of course, dont take my word for it, read it yourself:

http://blog.brentkno...08-summer-2009/

When your lead designer bails out, then something is truely wrong.

Note this here, from the blog:

I did some high level design for a potential new project but a few months later I realized that, given cutbacks and other things that it really seemed unlikely that the project I had been ‘assigned’ to was ever going to materialize. I can’t/won’t go into any other details other than to point to an old entry I made about this and reiterate: “I’m not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same company. ”

This man worked for 10 years for Bioware. He was there.

Any apologists still up for the notion that Bioware "is still the same as they ever were" argument?

Got over it.  EA has them now, and will do what they want with them.  If that means make lesser games in order to shuck out more product to be bought up by unexamining hordes, then thats what will happen.

The man who worked there 10 years has just shot your argument down. Completely.

Bioware has changed folks, and not for the better when a great designer like Brent Knowles feels he has to quit because of those changes.

It's incredibly arrogant to assume that you know why someone else did something as personal as quit their job. Yes, Knowles did say that he didn't like the direction DA2 was going, and that BioWare had changed, but that does not mean that it is without question a bad game, or that everyone should hate it, or that BioWare is a corrupt, corrupt demon's hive.

He worked there for ten years, of course the company is going to change. It's really funny how people are leaving out the part where Knowles goes "I'm not the same person I was". Because that is a huge factor in things like this.

I really don't see how people are reading that blog entry as anything more than a guy having a different idea, and leaving the company because he felt he had to move on. It happens all the time. 

Now, if Knowles had trashed EA, then it would be the doom and gloom story that people are making it out to be. But he didn't. 

And I mean, let's face it, nobody quits because a game is not what the fans want. The fanbase does not dictate the lives of a companies employees (or at least I'd hope not). 

If you want to take that as 100% proof that DA2 will suck and that BioWare is evil, go ahead. That's your opinion. But it is entirely unfair. 

Gaider even came in and talked about Brent Knowles' departure a little bit. Yet, everyone goes on making their own assumptions that it means "the other side" is wrong to like what they like.

I'm pretty sure that if Knowles were reading this, he'd be annoyed that any of us were talking about it.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:17 .

[Merced256]

Stanley Woo wrote...

If this becomes another "what is an RPG?" thread, it will be locked.

please just ban the idiots like rinpocheschnozberry instead. Not only is he stupid enough to claim that his rigid definition is correct, but he keeps pushing a subject we all know is pointless.

Modifié par Merced256, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:49 .

[Chris Priestly]

Stan did warn.


LOCKDOWN!