250 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
His main disagreement was that it was going with a lack of customization of his character, and also seemed to imply(at least back then) that they were discussing simplifying(relative to meaning I suppose) the tactical aspect of it.

He seems to infer that the main complaints where more because they were taking on a more cinematic/story telling approach, then one of the CRPG approach.  

I'll just point out that you might want to be careful about reading a lot into that. Brent was already gone before we got much into DA2's overall design, which has changed several times (in some big ways, even) since then. Could be that Brent might have thought those changes were worse/better, but people citing his post as "proof" of anything really shouldn't read more into it than what's there.

Either way, I miss Brent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Some people will, without a doubt, take those changes as "OMG it's not an RPG anymore!" --which really couldn't be further from the truth, but some will make the claim anyhow.

That would depend on what an RPG is, and as demonstrated by the threads that discuss that issue there is no consensus.

Certainly a game might fail to meet a definition's necessary and sufficient conditions for categorisation as an RPG.

I've heard it argued that an RPG should be playable (albeit slowly) by a quadriplegic.  By that standard you haven't made an RPG since KotOR (DAO would have counted if it had an auto-pause system).

I've heard it argued that an RPG must have stat-driven combat, which of BioWare's games that claim to be RPGs would only exclude ME2.

I've heard it argued that player input in RPG combat should have no necessary twitch aspect at all, which would further eliminate Jade Empire (and possible ME).

Until there is a broadly accepted definition of the term RPG, it cannot reasonably be said that any game definitively satifies all definitions.

[Meltemph]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Is it really unreasonable to expect that a sequel be more than just similar to its predecessor?

Unreasonable? No. Though I wouldn't expect that many people would like that. I, for one, would welcome a sequel with improved features and new additions.

I wouldn't Fireball you for having concerns as to how different DA2 may turn out than the way BioWare presents it, however.

I don't mean I'm against improving systems and what have you. I just wasn't fond of the ME2 approach. Combat was drastically changed, and not really for the better IMO since it basically just revolved around shooting people until your screen got all veiny and hiding until you can shoot people again. Inventory was changed, and basically made as bare bones as possible. The way the story was told changed, and it wasn't as good since there was no sense of urgency or a satisfying ending. Just doing unrelated quests to make sure your party doesn't die in a few cinematics.

Eh, I found the inventory in ME1 to be about as shallow as a puddle and the choices were... suffice to say, not really choices at all, but "along the journey" upgrades.  Combat, to me felt about the same, just faster paced and more precise. The story, I agree was sorta meh, but the middle of a story can always be the hardest, and I liked a lot of the new characters, so it was good enough to me.  

The inventory in ME2 was shallow as well, and while I enjoyed how much you could customize Shep, it was a bit disappointing that there were no real visible upgrades that your crew ever got(outside of relatively minor cosmetic changes).  The weapons though, actually FELT like actual choices and not like you were hurting yourself by pretending you had choices in ME1.

Overall I prefer the direction of ME2, but I wish they would have kept the spirit of some of the direction in ME1 as well.  Also, the story was better fleshed out in 1, but honestly, I was not expecting much in terms of story development, I was actually expecting more of a "world" development, which we got, even if I was a bit disappointed with it(the DLC stuff was great though, imi).

Modifié par Meltemph, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:05 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Meltemph wrote...

This is the part most people are talking about.  His main disagreement was that it was going with a lack of customization of his character, and also seemed to imply(at least back then) that they were discussing simplifying(relative to meaning I suppose) the tactical aspect of it.

He seems to infer that the main complaints where more because they were taking on a more cinematic/story telling approach, then one of the CRPG approach.  

I don't know where people got the impression that the two are mutually exclusive, or somehow going for one precludes the other.  Making something more cinematic, immersive, faster-paced, etc. does not mean it can't be a CRPG, and vice versa.

As for character customization, my favorite example to bring up for character customization in a truly brilliant CRPG is the Nameless One from Planescape: Torment.  His backstory, race, starting class, and gender are set.  Planescape:Torment is still freaking amazing.  The player agency and roleplaying room comes not from the customization of the main character, but how the player develops the Nameless One as an individual in his new incarnation, playing off of centuries of backstory, experiences, and consequences.  Creating a character with a more set backstory gives the writers more to work with; it's essentially trading roleplaying breadth for roleplaying depth.  Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Poorly done, you get things like a lot of JRPGs where you really have no say whatsoever.  Well done, you get things like PS:T.  I'm holding out for PS:T, personally.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There were things I think ME2 did quite a lot better than ME. One in particular ME2 did better than, I think, all previous BioWare games:

There was no XP given for combat. That was a tremendous advancement, and I want to see more of it.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Some people will, without a doubt, take those changes as "OMG it's not an RPG anymore!" --which really couldn't be further from the truth, but some will make the claim anyhow.

That would depend on what an RPG is, and as demonstrated by the threads that discuss that issue there is no consensus.

Certainly a game might fail to meet a definition's necessary and sufficient conditions for categorisation as an RPG.

I've heard it argued that an RPG should be playable (albeit slowly) by a quadriplegic.  By that standard you haven't made an RPG since KotOR (DAO would have counted if it had an auto-pause system).

I've heard it argued that an RPG must have stat-driven combat, which of BioWare's games that claim to be RPGs would only exclude ME2.

I've heard it argued that player input in RPG combat should have no necessary twitch aspect at all, which would further eliminate Jade Empire (and possible ME).

Until there is a broadly accepted definition of the term RPG, it cannot reasonably be said that any game definitively satifies all definitions.

While it is a bit of a copout, I define RPGs like I define obscenity, can't define it but I know it when I see it.  RPGs can't be exactly quantified as to how much of an RPG they are. 

Look at the JRPG tradition.  By the standards of many on this forum, JRPGs aren't RPGs.  But they are considered RPGs by millions of players. 

The RPG idea implies that as a genre it has a wide range of various types.  I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

[Meltemph]

David Gaider wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
His main disagreement was that it was going with a lack of customization of his character, and also seemed to imply(at least back then) that they were discussing simplifying(relative to meaning I suppose) the tactical aspect of it.

He seems to infer that the main complaints where more because they were taking on a more cinematic/story telling approach, then one of the CRPG approach.  

I'll just point out that you might want to be careful about reading a lot into that. Brent was already gone before we got much into DA2's overall design, which has changed several times (in some big ways, even) since then. Could be that Brent might have thought those changes were worse/better, but people citing his post as "proof" of anything really shouldn't read more into it than what's there.

Either way, I miss Brent.

Oh, I agree whole hartily, which is why I left much up for debate, and also why I mentioned, "at least back then", as in stuff changes.  However, whether the changes were minor come closer to completion or not, his problems didnt seem to imply a problem with the decisions themselves, but only the direction(mindset) the THIS game was going.   

Obviously without detailed explanations of every word he said we can't take much from his blog, but I would argue that there is enough to get the "theme" of his disagreements, even if the specifics are not there.  But yes, I agree, not much to talk about there...

[nightcobra]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There were things I think ME2 did quite a lot better than ME. One in particular ME2 did better than, I think, all previous BioWare games:
There was no XP given for combat. That was a tremendous advancement, and I want to see more of it.

that i (sort of) agree, it's more of an incentive to level up using non-combat solutions. 

[Sable Rhapsody]

JrayM16 wrote...
I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

That is possibly the most sensible statement I've heard on the forums.

[Meltemph]

I don't know where people got the impression that the two are mutually exclusive, or somehow going for one precludes the other. Making something more cinematic, immersive, faster-paced, etc. does not mean it can't be a CRPG, and vice versa.

Oh, I am not disagreeing with you there at all, but if your focus of that changes, for instances from a 5 to a 8 for example, then obviously design choices will be effected. Was my only point.

[AlanC9]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Is it really unreasonable to expect that a sequel be more than just similar to its predecessor?

I'd have to say that it is unreasonable, or maybe just ignorant. Lots of sequels go in different directions from their predecessors. There's nothing especially unusual about how different ME2 was from ME1.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:52 .

[JrayM16]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...
I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

That is possibly the most sensible statement I've heard on the forums.

Why thank you.

[the_one_54321]

JrayM16 wrote...
While it is a bit of a copout, I define RPGs like I define obscenity, can't define it but I know it when I see it.  RPGs can't be exactly quantified as to how much of an RPG they are. 

Look at the JRPG tradition.  By the standards of many on this forum, JRPGs aren't RPGs.  But they are considered RPGs by millions of players. 

The RPG idea implies that as a genre it has a wide range of various types.  I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

People make up their own definition for RPG. And worse, the developers encourage it so that they can tag their games however they wish for marketing. It's a bunch of giberish. You can exactly quantify RPG, but no one is willing to do it, thus the subjective pointless mess that we're all left in which only the marketing department profits from.

[SoR82]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...
I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

That is possibly the most sensible statement I've heard on the forums.

Yeah well look at the competition XD

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

While it is a bit of a copout, I define RPGs like I define obscenity, can't define it but I know it when I see it.  RPGs can't be exactly quantified as to how much of an RPG they are. 

I don't think you need me to tell you how awful I think that definition is.

Of RPGs and obsenity.

I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

This is perhaps a more reasonable question, though the RPG question is still relevant to help players determine whether any given game is one they want to play.

There was a time when I would enjoy any game produced that was called an RPG, because they all contained the features I wanted, and all avoided the features I disliked.  The label has ceased to be useful in this way.

I would love some sort of replacement tool.

[Sable Rhapsody]

the_one_54321 wrote...
People make up their own definition for RPG. And worse, the developers encourage it so that they can tag their games however they wish for marketing. It's a bunch of giberish. You can exactly quantify RPG, but no one is willing to do it, thus the subjective pointless mess that we're all left in which only the marketing department profits from.

So how exactly does one quantify RPG?  Is there a sliding scale from 1-10 of RPG-ness, with all the irrational numbers in between?  Can we assign an RPG value of pi to ME1, e to ME2, and thrice the Golden Ratio to DA?

[Meltemph]

This is perhaps a more reasonable question, though the RPG question is still relevant to help players determine whether any given game is one they want to play.

There was a time when I would enjoy any game produced that was called an RPG, because they all contained the features I wanted, and all avoided the features I disliked. The label has ceased to be useful in this way.

I would love some sort of replacement tool.

Well, the whole point of labeling genre's in video-games is expectations, I agree, however: adventure games, RPG's, and action games, and plat-formers have been so used by other genre's or been mixed with other genre's that the labels no longer suit their purpose. Essentially, you have to look at a "style" of a game to determine its "genre" so to speak.

As it stands though, the market has decided the definitions and until otherwise halted or changed, you can't expect the expectations to not vary from person to person.

Modifié par Meltemph, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:06 .

[the_one_54321]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
People make up their own definition for RPG. And worse, the developers encourage it so that they can tag their games however they wish for marketing. It's a bunch of giberish. You can exactly quantify RPG, but no one is willing to do it, thus the subjective pointless mess that we're all left in which only the marketing department profits from.

So how exactly does one quantify RPG?  Is there a sliding scale from 1-10 of RPG-ness, with all the irrational numbers in between?  Can we assign an RPG value of pi to ME1, e to ME2, and thrice the Golden Ratio to DA?

You base the definition of a genre on something completely objective: the mechanics. You say that certain gameplay mechanics belong to certain genres. Then there is no confusion in genre labeling. You are given, through the genre label, a specific description of the kind of game you are going to play.

But again, no one will do it, because the Devs profit from us not having a real definition so that they can label their games however they choose and make all kinds of outlandish claims like "action RPG" "shoter RPG hybrid" and other such nonsense.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:04 .

[ashwind]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I don't mean I'm against improving systems and what have you. I just wasn't fond of the ME2 approach. Combat was drastically changed, and not really for the better IMO since it basically just revolved around shooting people until your screen got all veiny and hiding until you can shoot people again. Inventory was changed, and basically made as bare bones as possible. The way the story was told changed, and it wasn't as good since there was no sense of urgency or a satisfying ending. Just doing unrelated quests to make sure your party doesn't die in a few cinematics.

Just a matter of perspective and preference I think.

ME1 - investigate 3 location, Virmire, Ilos, end.
ME2 - Recruit team, TIM contacts you when there is a lead, investigate, got ambushed, save crew, end.

Personally I enjoy the companion quest a lot - I get to know them better.

Combat wise... I enjoy it infinitely more than ME1... 

My only worry of DA2 is that it will play too much like ME2 Vanguard (my absolute favorite btw - just want something different in DA) but David already said that it will not be exactly like ME but something in between so will wait and see. 

[The Masked Rog]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
People make up their own definition for RPG. And worse, the developers encourage it so that they can tag their games however they wish for marketing. It's a bunch of giberish. You can exactly quantify RPG, but no one is willing to do it, thus the subjective pointless mess that we're all left in which only the marketing department profits from.

So how exactly does one quantify RPG?  Is there a sliding scale from 1-10 of RPG-ness, with all the irrational numbers in between?  Can we assign an RPG value of pi to ME1, e to ME2, and thrice the Golden Ratio to DA?

You base the definition of a genre on something completely objective: the mechanics. You say that certain gameplay mechanics belong to certain genres. Then there is no confusion in genre labeling. You are given, through the genre label, a specific description of the kind of game you are going to play.

But again, no one will do it, because the Devs profit from us not having a real definition so that they can label their games however they choose and make all kinds of outlandish claims like "action RPG" "shoter RPG hybrid" and other such nonsense.

But an RPG goes beyond the mechanics. It has nothing to do with whether a game has inventory, party combat, isometric view, etc... A Roleplaying game puts the PC on a role and lets him have a degree of control over that role. How that is interpreted is pretty much a personal thing, and can't really be judged objectively. 

[AlanC9]

I'm not quite clear what good basing the definition on the mechanics would do the average gamer, actually. Care to elaborate? Which game shouldn't have been called an RPG, what should it have been called instead, and why would that have been better?

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:07 .

[the_one_54321]

The Masked Rog wrote...
and can't really be judged objectively. 

Of course you can. You're just choosing not to because you already have "you're own opinion" and so on and so forth. Why can't you define "play a role" through the mechanics that enable it?

[WilliamShatner]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There were things I think ME2 did quite a lot better than ME. One in particular ME2 did better than, I think, all previous BioWare games:
There was no XP given for combat. That was a tremendous advancement, and I want to see more of it.

Er no.  The more you fight the more experience you get the better you become.  This is part of real ife.  Not progressing as a fighter after killing 100 enemies is not logical AT ALL.

No XP for kills in ME2 made combat shallow and hollow.  Why am I doing this if I'm not progressing?  Just get me back to the story then.

Skills for kills agent.  Skills for kill.

[theamplifiedsoul]

Nothing wrong with criticism. The problem is the delivery. When people use the terms dumbed down, lame, stupid... etc... etc... Then it puts the people who like the direction on the defensive. There are two extremes here. People whining and crying outrage. The there are people praising every little bit of info as if it were delivered by the Maker himself.



The truth is that there isn't enough information out there to justify being on either side. The people who have some concerns I understand. That's cool. The ones that discuss it with out throwing out insults have a better chance of getting their point across.