250 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Really? We don't know much about DA2? The only thing we don't much about is the story. The gameplay and dialog systems have been spelled out pretty clearly, as has the intent to make DA more like ME. I'm not misinformed. I follow every little bit of news. And I'm not whining because I wanted a carbon copy od Origins. I was against DA2 focusing on the Warden. I wanted a game set outside Ferelden without a Grey Warden main and without a Blight setting. What I don't want is less freedom and less tactical combat. But that is exactly what we're getting. And don;t say otherwise, because then you would look misinformed. Taking away the auto-attack feature means we have to focus on one enemy at a time instead of controlling the entire battle. The whole "Fight like a Spartan, think like a general" marketing blurb is just BS. When we can't control the entire battle we can't "think like generals."

Since when are they taking away auto attack? All the feedback is its still there, at least on the PC. Since when are they removing tactical combat? The feedback is there will still be a tactical view in some form.

[The Masked Rog]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Morroian wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Really? We don't know much about DA2? The only thing we don't much about is the story. The gameplay and dialog systems have been spelled out pretty clearly, as has the intent to make DA more like ME. I'm not misinformed. I follow every little bit of news. And I'm not whining because I wanted a carbon copy od Origins. I was against DA2 focusing on the Warden. I wanted a game set outside Ferelden without a Grey Warden main and without a Blight setting. What I don't want is less freedom and less tactical combat. But that is exactly what we're getting. And don;t say otherwise, because then you would look misinformed. Taking away the auto-attack feature means we have to focus on one enemy at a time instead of controlling the entire battle. The whole "Fight like a Spartan, think like a general" marketing blurb is just BS. When we can't control the entire battle we can't "think like generals."

Since when are they taking away auto attack? All the feedback is its still there, at least on the PC. Since when are they removing tactical combat? The feedback is there will still be a tactical view in some form.

You clearly haven't been following the news. Auto-attack will only be present on PC. It's gone on consoles.

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

[nightcobra]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Morroian wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Really? We don't know much about DA2? The only thing we don't much about is the story. The gameplay and dialog systems have been spelled out pretty clearly, as has the intent to make DA more like ME. I'm not misinformed. I follow every little bit of news. And I'm not whining because I wanted a carbon copy od Origins. I was against DA2 focusing on the Warden. I wanted a game set outside Ferelden without a Grey Warden main and without a Blight setting. What I don't want is less freedom and less tactical combat. But that is exactly what we're getting. And don;t say otherwise, because then you would look misinformed. Taking away the auto-attack feature means we have to focus on one enemy at a time instead of controlling the entire battle. The whole "Fight like a Spartan, think like a general" marketing blurb is just BS. When we can't control the entire battle we can't "think like generals."

Since when are they taking away auto attack? All the feedback is its still there, at least on the PC. Since when are they removing tactical combat? The feedback is there will still be a tactical view in some form.

You clearly haven't been following the news. Auto-attack will only be present on PC. It's gone on consoles.

i don't think not having auto attack on consoles is that much of a deal, for one thing basic attacks seldom are a part of a strategy, another thing is that it makes me feel like my regular attack is like one of the skills...just without the cooldown, even in origins i sometimes found myself pressing the attack button even though it was auto attacking.

[Nerevar-as]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i don't think not having auto attack on consoles is that much of a deal, for one thing basic attacks seldom are a part of a strategy, another thing is that it makes me feel like my regular attack is like one of the skills...just without the cooldown, even in origins i sometimes found myself pressing the attack button even though it was auto attacking.

Depends on the stamina/mana pool. If it is ajusted, console players will be mashing buttons more often than not.

About combat gameplay feel, ME was based more in player skill than in character skill, DA:O is the other way round. If that remains it shouldn´t feel very different, although it might look more spectacular, which can be bad in a dark setting if it is executed badly. I don´t want to be laughing at the character´s stunts in a dramatic battle.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 07 octobre 2010 - 11:08 .

[The Masked Rog]

BrotherWarth wrote...

So Bioware lied when they said auto-attack wasn't on consoles?

From the What we know so far thread:

FINAL WORD: PC and Consoles both have auto-attack functionality, but pressing A/X on XBox 360/PS3, respectively, will perform a basic attack. To make a character auto-attack, you can select it from the radial menu. [Mike Laidlaw] NEW 09/20

[nightcobra]

The Masked Rog wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

So Bioware lied when they said auto-attack wasn't on consoles?

From the What we know so far thread:

FINAL WORD: PC and Consoles both have auto-attack functionality, but pressing A/X on XBox 360/PS3, respectively, will perform a basic attack. To make a character auto-attack, you can select it from the radial menu. [Mike Laidlaw] NEW 09/20

you see, glory for everyone:wizard:

[nightcobra]

BrotherWarth wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

So Bioware lied when they said auto-attack wasn't on consoles?

From the What we know so far thread:

FINAL WORD: PC and Consoles both have auto-attack functionality, but pressing A/X on XBox 360/PS3, respectively, will perform a basic attack. To make a character auto-attack, you can select it from the radial menu. [Mike Laidlaw] NEW 09/20

When the video with leaked gameplay came out people started talking about the apparent lack of auto-attack and either Laidlaw or Gaider said it was removed. But I can't find the thread any more.

only that leaked video came after mike said auto attack could be done in the radial menu, that much i'm sure.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And JMike Laidlaw has said that his goal with DA2 is effectively the same thing.  The complexity will still be there, but it won't be forced upon new players and leave them to sink or swim.  This is probably a really good idea.

Indeed. The main thing is that ME1 always had poor RPG elements (from an inventory and character building sense). So if you hide the RPG presentation, I think it overemphasizes the weakeness of the design elements.

I am hoping that in contrast, DA2, which inherents some quality RPG elements from DA (in terms of character building; the inventory was not particulary strong or dazzling) will not suffer from the same.

And people who defend ME2's inventory system on the basis of realism (you can only carry 4 weapons at a time) completely ignore the weapon lockers which were basically access ports to a nonsensically large inventory that somehow you carried around with you everywhere you go.

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).

And while I'm aware that DAO failed for you in this regard, it succeeded for me far better than any ME title ever did.  Even your description of your DAO experience is vastly superior to my ME experience, where muy character concept was utterly destroyed mere minutes into the game, and then repeatedly throughout.

To be fair, DA:O only brought the hammer down on me near the end of my first playthrough and for every playthrough after Ostagar (or Lothering) thereafter. With my first mage I did not appreciate the restrictiveness so strongly until much later in the game.

And she was a city elf - I believe yours was too.  And her character concept was very closely tied to her city elf origins (I'd played a different city elf earlier whose personality wouldn't have been out of place in any of the origins, and he worked brilliantly - I'm planning to use that same basic design to test DA2's dialogue system).

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. 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).

As Morrigan's dream demonstrated, the demon isn't always that good at being seductive.  Some Wardens might find the Weisshaupt dream quite pleasant.

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. If you look at the Origin not as your core identity, but as the background, with the identity of the Grey Warde as the core, the options in the game make significant more sense (in terms of how they are constructed).

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

slimgrin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Let me end this argument: Role playing games are all about story. If it's a good story, then it's a good game.

That is all. Everything else is window dressing, dross, and min/max masturbation. Strip away the crap (inventory management, endless number crunching, tedious flow-killing chat tree menus) and the story only become more tighly connected to the player's experience. That is a good thing.

You want to crunch numbers, keep track of what value is plugged into what equation, and balance tables... load up Excel. Crunch numbers to your hearts delight. Me (and 99% of the RPGers out there) want a great story.

You want a story, read a book.

This post is so full of generalizations and nonsense ...do you realize Bioware doesn't even make the kind of game you are describing? ME1 has numbers and stats. ME2 has numbers and stats. So does DAO. What the hell are you talking about? I wish a dev from Bioware would put this nonsense to rest. 

So far, I haven't had to crunch a single number in any rpg I have played. That's what the computer is for.

You don't play RPGs for the story of your character?  What do you play for?  To waste time?  

I agree though, that your post is full of generalizations and nonsense.  BioWare's absolutely makes the game I described.  ME2 was a great balance of story and character customization.  Armor choice, biotic and and weapon selection and customization...  It all coupled with the narrative perfectly.  There was no point where a player would have to decide between one gun or the other by staring at the +11% firing rate or a +5%AP and +6%RTYMS.  ME2 presented the weapons and powers in a much more click-and-play way... so I could grab the gear my Shepard needed and then dive into game, i.e, the telling of Shepard's story.

DA2 appears to be learning from this.  Not a direct lift, I'm sure, but learning from it.  This is a fantastic, fantastic, hoopy-dee-doo thing.    DAO's inventory management, the voiceless conversations, the corpse looting...  All garbage.  I'm sure DA2 will still have it, because some people confuse calculating the number of coils of rope your can carry with having fun.  Maybe counting your potions and keeping track of your damage per second is incrededibly entertaining to some folks (the OP for example seems incensed that DA2 will be much more streamlined) but most people aren't going to miss it.  The people that will miss the number crunching and the tallying, should go get Excel.  Because the RPG is still there.  The UI, the interface, that's all streamlined. 

The RPG isn't the buttons you push, the RPG is the story that you (and BioWare) tell.  That isn't impacted by removing the dull aspects of traditional RPGs. 

:D:D 

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:04 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

If i wanted a carbon copy of DA:O I'd just buy an additional copy.... They need to change somethings in the game just to make it different enough for people to actually wanna play it. And so far what they've cahgned aren't even all that groundbreaking. Buhu a talking protagonist and a dialogue wheel. What's that you say? Action packed combat? Last I checked it was just more action packed animations... The way you order your group around is still the exact same, they just moved the actual action of your command to the start of the sequence instead of the end.



Keeping things the same just for the sake of keeping them the same is not a good thing (see what I did there?)....

[PrincessRiku]

Not entirely sure why people argue over a sailed ship. I doubt that there are going to be any sort of changes made anymore to DA2, so the best course of action would be to just...not buy it if you don't think it's your cup of tea?



I'll be buying it, for the same reason I got Witch Hunt when everyone else was complaining about it. If you don't care about the story and characters in a game where you're supposed to be playing through the eyes of your character, then it's silly to waste money on it to begin with. That being said...*prepares for a lynch mob*...I enjoyed Witch Hunt enough when I played it on my husband's computer that I'm buying it with my next check.



Some things just aren't for everyone, and it seems a lot of the crying and moaning is a lot less about just getting the word out there and a lot more about trying to convince everyone else to pee, cry, and moan about things the way you see it.

[Nozybidaj]

CommanderNuetral wrote...

The thing that makes a role-playing game is choices and a world, full of characters, to make them in, not slow combat, silent protagonists, massive inventories, and whatever else Bioware is changing.

So you're saying that a rpg only needs 1) A world, 2) Characters, and 3) Choices.

Basically you're saying every game ever invented is a role-playing game?  Interesting.

[nightcobra]

Nozybidaj wrote...

CommanderNuetral wrote...

The thing that makes a role-playing game is choices and a world, full of characters, to make them in, not slow combat, silent protagonists, massive inventories, and whatever else Bioware is changing.

So you're saying that a rpg only needs 1) A world, 2) Characters, and 3) Choices.

Basically you're saying every game ever invented is a role-playing game?  Interesting.

i think it's more of a matter of how much is fleshed out of those 3 categories that make an rpg. other genres may have those components but it's usually the rpg genre that builds itself around those 3 things to such an extent.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Nozybidaj wrote...

CommanderNuetral wrote...

The thing that makes a role-playing game is choices and a world, full of characters, to make them in, not slow combat, silent protagonists, massive inventories, and whatever else Bioware is changing.

So you're saying that a rpg only needs 1) A world, 2) Characters, and 3) Choices.

Basically you're saying every game ever invented is a role-playing game?  Interesting.

Technically all games which puts you in the role of a character is an RPG, so if you want to that literal, yes every game is an RPG. However the genre "RPG" is defined by their often massive worlds, fleshed out characters (by this I mean fleshed out in the sense that you get more information than needed for you immediate mission), and choices and consequences (and by this I mean you get alot of them in an RPG).

[Nozybidaj]

Technically all games which puts you in the role of a character is an
RPG, so if you want to that literal, yes every game is an RPG. However
the genre "RPG" is defined by their often massive worlds, fleshed out
characters (by this I mean fleshed out in the sense that you get more
information than needed for you immediate mission), and choices and
consequences (and by this I mean you get alot of them in an RPG).

Then would you consider something like, for instance, Madden '11 an RPG?

It's characters (the players) are incredibly fleshed out with stats and AI routines and visual customization.  Its world (the stadiums and fields) are extremely well done with attention paid to the smallest of visual details and close ups of the crowd, weather, commentators, physics, etc.  You also get tons of choices in which plays to call, whether to pass or scramble, if you want to punt on 4th&1, which direction to run, etc.

All three of these areas (characters, world, choices) are both deep and intricate in a game like that.  Does that make it a role playing game?  Or do we only excuse away more traditional elements of a rpg and still call a game an rpg when it suits us?  Where is the line between rpg and shooter/action & adventure game?

edit: to quote response while I was typing.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 07 octobre 2010 - 03:49 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Technically all games which puts you in the role of a character is an
RPG, so if you want to that literal, yes every game is an RPG. However
the genre "RPG" is defined by their often massive worlds, fleshed out
characters (by this I mean fleshed out in the sense that you get more
information than needed for you immediate mission), and choices and
consequences (and by this I mean you get alot of them in an RPG).

Then would you consider something like, for instance, Madden '11 an RPG?

It's characters (the players) are incredibly fleshed out with stats and AI routines and visual customization.  Its world (the stadiums and fields) are extremely well done with attention paid to the smallest of visual details and close ups of the crowd, weather, commentators, physics, etc.  You also get tons of choices in which plays to call, whether to pass or scramble, if you want to punt on 4th&1, which direction to run, etc.

All three of these areas (characters, world, choices) are both deep and intricate in a game like that.  Does that make it a role playing game?  Or do we only excuse away more traditional elements of a rpg and still call a game an rpg when it suits us?  Where is the line between rpg and shooter/action & adventure game?

edit: to quote response while I was typing.

NO, that game isn't an RPG because it doesn't put you in the role of a character, nor is any of the characters particularly fleshed out. They give you some "this guy run this fast, tackles this hard, etc. data. For the characters to be fleshed out we would need all of that, in addition to when and where they were born, their history before NFL or similar. SO no they are not that fleshed out. The world of the game is not fleshed out at all either, actually nothing outside the stadion is described, so it doesn't fit there either. Nor do you get any choices in anything else than purely tactical matters.

[AlanC9]

ashwind wrote...

Lol - everyone seems to have a different idea of what RPG elements are

That's why you often see the phrase "traditional RPG elements." It means that you're talking about things that RPGs have often done, without having to express an opinion as to whether that's what makes them RPGs.

[Stanley Woo]

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

[upsettingshorts]

AlanC9 wrote...
That's why you often see the phrase "traditionalRPG elements." It means that you're talking about things that RPGs haveoften done, without having to express an opinion as to whether that's what makes them RPGs.

Yup, and that's why I can label the dialogue wheel a "CRPG innovation" and another can call it "crap" and we'll both be right.

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

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.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:00 .

[AlanC9]

BrotherWarth wrote...
When the video with leaked gameplay came out people started talking about the apparent lack of auto-attack and either Laidlaw or Gaider said it was removed. But I can't find the thread any more.

So auto-attack simply hadn't been enabled when the game in the video was being played. It's not rocket science.

[Nozybidaj]

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.  

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....