735 réponses à ce sujet

[Lucy Glitter]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This kinda nonsense is fun for me, but then I find rhetoric fascinating.  For my part I think the Varric fan thread are pushing it and blog fodder though I still poke my head in there from time to time.  It takes all sorts, does it not?

I see, well do continue with the nonsense. Just don't pull me into it  

I also don't really get the Varric thing... I like Varric from what I see of him, buuuut I don't think i'd go so far as to... yeah. I just don't get it.

David Gaider wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Um nummies! Gaider writing! *chomp chomp chomp*

I was using that. <_<

So you are saying you want me to throw it up?

What kind of sicko are you?!

[upsettingshorts]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
I see, well do continue with the nonsense. Just don't pull me into it

No problem. 

[David Gaider]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
So you are saying you want me to throw it up?

No. No, you can keep it. Just don't eat the tablecloth, please. We'll want that for later.

[Lucy Glitter]

David Gaider wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
So you are saying you want me to throw it up?

No. No, you can keep it. Just don't eat the tablecloth, please. We'll want that for later.

Just ruin my fun all at once why don't you.

[the_one_54321]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Take all that mumbo jumbo to a blog, please. It's not very fun. I don't particularly feel like elaborating for the millionth time on why I do not like the million different changed to the franchise.

Well then don't. As pointed out above, less elloquently, (or perhaps more eloquently, there were almost a page of posts since I started typing this) if you wander into these kinds of threads this is the kind of stuff you're going to see. We try to keep everyone polite and kind, but this talk is not for those who don't want to spend a good amount of time thinking very hard about what they are reading and what they are going to say in return.
Your name was referenced because you posted, you were responded to, and the exchange had some relevence to what was being discussed by others. Threads like this are not for those who are not willing to volunteer for that. Thought it would be nice if you noticed that some of the posters referenced you as a way of defending your stance.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

There's room for improvement in Upsettingshort's classification. Heck, there's always room for improvement in everything. That doesn't mean it's trash or out of whack, however. Considering the starting points, I think it's a job well done in general.

Oh, and I like how Sarah said she's not quite the **** when people are on her good side. That was entertaining.

[upsettingshorts]

That being said, no one ought to be used an example by two people in a debate if he/she would rather not be a part of it. I can respect that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:24 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
And your definition of what a defining trait of the game is will be different  than mine, or Sylvius', or David Gaiders... the list goes on.  That's partly why I created the labels.  A reactionary would say that defining CRPG traits were missing from DA:O.  A radical would say there's a lot that you could change about DA:O before its defining traits would be altered.  See my point?

The thing is that I'm (and others) not talking about the defining traits of RPGs here. I'm talking about what defined DA:O as DA:O. What was core to the mechanics and interaction in that specific game? That's what should not be changed.

[Leonia]

Reading this thread is like watching a dog chase its tail. It's a cute dog though. It's a bit early to speculate on how drastically different/similar DA 2 will be to DA:O, don't ya think? I've been trying to stay out of the posting since I haven't had anything nice to say in response to Jintar but at least others have been able to be polite with their responses. I salute you, sers.

[the_one_54321]

leonia42 wrote...
Reading this thread is like watching a dog chase its tail. It's a cute dog though. It's a bit early to speculate on how drastically different/similar DA 2 will be to DA:O, don't ya think?

That's what I said to Gaider a page ago! 

[Meltemph]

So what are the defining traits for you. It is hard for me personally to point them out, because I just am looking forward to a good game, no matter its form. The only main defining point for me is the story, the lore of the world, character interaction, and a stat based, character skill driven, combat system.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote..
The thing is that I'm (and others) not talking about the defining traits of RPGs here. I'm talking about what defined DA:O as DA:O. What was core to the mechanics and interaction in that specific game? That's what should not be changed.

I think you'd get into a debate over that, too.  Furthermore, I'm not quite sure that violates the spirit of my definition of conservative.  Would you dispute that?  Read what I post below before you respond, if you could.

(I removed the following from an edit to my above post and placed it here as to make more sense in context of the discussion)

In terms of my labels, the trouble is making the descriptions broad enough to encompass many different viewpoints but without becoming effectively meaningless.

There's actually a concept in Victoria 2- the inspiration for this whole thing - called Militancy.  In the game, political parties form coalitions when militancy is low.  Liberals and radicals will form governments together, and so on.

But when militancy is high, they won't - and will instead try to form minority governments rather than lump themselves in with people whose views are slightly different with them.  It's a genius feature.

Do I think that concept could be applied to describe say, a militant conservative (if it ain't broke...) with a more open-minded one (some changes would be fine but...)?  Absolutely.  But I didn't want to get too complicated, you know?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:27 .

[the_one_54321]

Meltemph wrote...
So what are the defining traits for you

Three guesses what I'm going to say next....
ready for it?
Last chance to guess....


Mechanics.

What is the mechanical interaction with the game. Mike has insisted that there will be little to no change between DA:O and DA][, mechanically, on the PC. That's pretty much why I'm still here.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Mechanics.

Would the dialogue wheel qualify?  Or are you referring more specifically to combat mechanics?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not quite the **** when you're on my good side

Oh... How wonderful, you sound like a peach. >.>

Sometimes I wonder if you just like a flare for the dramatic.

or wanting to see a genre I love changed and streamlined to hell and beyond

Who exactly suggested this, assuming you mean stripped down? Now some people may be fine with the changes, but I see nothing being "stripped down". Perhaps a change in direction, but that would be about it.

Nothing we have seen so far suggest stripping down of anything.

If the tactical camera goes the way of the dodo bird, I'd consider that just a little bit of stripping. Just as an example. Or the ability to define a character when you have to rely on paraphrased voiced responces for another. Personally, I don't quite understand why every game has to be this big epic cinematic experience for the sake of being a cinematic experience. But I think it more lies in what does one personally want out of an RPG. And thats generally where the arguments come from because everyone has a different opinion on that.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:32 .

[Meltemph]

 Shorts... not to be mean or anything but these labels seem more like work, keeping track of what is what.  And really only helps those who have not been calling people troll's/fanboys/stupid heads. 

I mean, dont get me wrong, I find the concept interesting, but a bit of work if you actually want to flesh out the meaning...

I dunno, call me lazy. <_<

[the_one_54321]

Also...

David Gaider wrote...
 AngryPants was saying...

upsettingshorts will henceforth be known as AngryPants. Darth Gaider has spoken.

[Morroian]

Addai67 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And by that logic in DA2 you can make Hawke whoever you want him to be.

Plus you still haven't answered the point about Planescape Torment, or there's a more recent example The Witcher.

Why do people keep bringing those games up?  Even if they are good, they're not the same playing experience that we got used to in DAO and (some of us) were hoping for more of in DA2. 

Because the person I was replying to said that a game with a fixed protagonist is not an rpg but an action adventure game

[Dave of Canada]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

If the tactical camera goes the way of the dodo bird, I'd consider that just a little bit of stripping. Just as an example.

... and they said a dozen times it wasn't removed.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
upsettingshorts will henceforth be known as AngryPants. Darth Gaider has spoken.

Hell no.  It flagrantly violates the reference!

Upsetting shorts were the tiny, short shorts worn by Japanese schoolchildren and 1950s era leading men like John Agar in the crappy movies lampooned on MST3K!  It was a running joke!

/shakes fist at David Gaider

Meltemph wrote...

Shorts... not to be mean or anything
but these labels seem more like work, keeping track of what is what.
 And really only helps those who have not been calling people
troll's/fanboys/stupid heads. 

I mean, dont get me wrong, I find the concept interesting, but a bit of work if you actually want to flesh out the meaning...

I dunno, call me lazy. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

Heh, yeah.  I do enjoy silly things - I admit.  I see it as an interesting word problem that can be solved, at least to my personal satisfaction.  I don't hold out some foolish hope that the entire forums will eventually adopt my definitions for describing everyone.  Though that would amuse the hell out of me.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:33 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Mechanics.

Would the dialogue wheel qualify?  Or are you referring more specifically to combat mechanics?

Dialog interaction is hardly mechanical, but I could see how someone might claim that was part of the core mechanic of DA:O. If they were to have included that in DA][ I would have seen it as a positive. But the currently system described for the game doesn't rub me the wrong way either. Actually playing the game will hardly change at all, strictly speaking.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Apparently every political party drags America to the ground per political cycle and that explains why the US is firmly at sea level, while in some places up to a mile above sea level



The same applies to all Bioware games



Except their Canadian



Except for TOR, that will bring the apocalypse, and will bring the US to the ground as its dynamic shift in ideologies will obviously shake the foundation of all video games a centimeter to the lower right. And it will be big government as they will monitor all citizens of TOR with additional memberships and costs that they will claim will keep the servers up and running. But I don't want to pay for a bunch of freeloaders playing that game. I only want to pay for myself and myself only, as I will be the one subscribing not some random person I will never meet and who probably does not have a job.

[Meltemph]

If the tactical camera goes the way of the dodo bird, I'd consider that just a little bit of stripping. Just as an example.

Ah, see I didn't like it much, outside of placing fireballs and what not, but taking it away I guess would be considered stripping down, if you use it. Specially since more people use it then I would have guessed, I honestly am not a fan of the perspective with 3D games though(I see the draw I guess though). I would assume the only reason they would take it away though would be technical issues I would have to think, no?



Would be a bit weird to take such a feature away for any-other reason then limitations of the engine.

That said, I think they said they are going to try and make sure it is in, in some form, I think(don't quote me on this).

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

If the tactical camera goes the way of the dodo bird, I'd consider that just a little bit of stripping. Just as an example.

... and they said a dozen times it wasn't removed.

Well actually they've been kinda vague on that, I recall Mike saying it wasn't the same as it is in Origins. What I'm wondering is, will it still allow for the tactical feel of the first game, given the combat is faster, or will it just end up feeling more chaotic and more like an action game, rather than a semi real time pause n play type of situation.

[David Gaider]

leonia42 wrote...
It's a bit early to speculate on how drastically different/similar DA 2 will be to DA:O, don't ya think?

It no doubt is, and until we show more all the speculation is a bit fruitless. And we will show more, obviously, but that's not soon enough for some people-- and thus they'll render Final Judgement based on the information they have at the time, based on the assumption that what they see or think they see is all there is to the game. Anything else is like Shroedinger's Cat and doesn't actually exist.

Origins went through this period, too, and while people will claw their eyes out thinking that it can't possibly happen soon enough ("why isn't it happening RIGHT NOW?? OMG") eventually there will be so much information available you will be absolutely sick of hearing about it.

Not that the opinions will change, necessarily. But it'd be nice to see them backed up by more than ideology.