735 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Hey NOW! Don't start throwing insults around and then complain about someone getting the thread locked RAWR! Not helping! Oh, and your avatar looks like he is a fan of a sports team with red and blue face paint, I'm just say'n.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Bah, my bad I thought I was being clever with the MMO satire. Anyway at its core the arguement about loyalists/nontraditionalists is an intriguing point. Of course you have the if it aint broke don't fix it. However quite frankly RPG fans factor in the importance of different things.



Gameplay can be a game breaker. Character customization can be a game breaker. Character empathy can be a game breaker.



Being a nontraditionalist in any of those can be problematic if the effect on the end is regressive.



LIke take Ratchet and Clank, leveling up is pretty much pointless. but it has it. If something is that nerfed it doesn' serve a purpose.



While if you build on a sytsem you might end up finding something new by accident.

[Meltemph]

 

We're having a good discussion here. Don't get the thread locked, please.

I was messing with you... Unless you don't know the saying? 
"Caps lock is cruise control for cool"

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

If making the transition from tactical combat with pause is progress, then I am against progress.

Well, I stayed away from the term progressive because it has a positive bias associated with it. 

As far as how your case could help me develop the label system, again I am forced to return to my muse - Victoria 2 - which is a fun game and not just a source for coming up with silly ways to categorize people on the forums of an unrelated developer.

In Victoria 2, conservatives will vote for change in times of high Consciousness (an abstract rating of how politically active a country's people are).  Why?  Because if they don't support minor change when the atmosphere - or force of history - demands it, then they will be left in the dustbin of history, and rightly so.  So they don't mind minor changes because they help preserve the core of what they consider the status quo. 

Your willingness to see what others might consider major or core features changed - as long as significant portions of the game you feel are integral to your enjoyment of the game remain intact - then that might fit, would it not?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:02 .

[Leonia]

Meltemph wrote...

Hey NOW! Don't start throwing insults around and then complain about someone getting the thread locked RAWR! Not helping! Oh, and your avatar looks like he is a fan of a sports team with red and blue face paint, I'm just say'n.

Take your own advice, mate, and ask yourself "Is the post I am about to make relevant to the thread or on-topic at all?" before you hit the submit button.

Some interesting points there, Onyx Jaguar, but like everything else..it's subjective. Some people wouldn't say character customisation or empathy are as important as combat mechanics, not saying I would say that but everyone's opinion would vary there. It's a bit tricky to compare single-player games to MMOs since there are a lot of different elements to keep track of.

While if you build on a sytsem you might end up finding something new by accident.

While that may be true, is that a chance a company wants to bank on? Probably not if they have a less risky alternative.

Modifié par leonia42, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:03 .

[the_one_54321]

Well if you define it that way, then yes. But status quo would imply unchanging. At least in all the usage I've seen of it, it means keep things from changing. So if they are changing, the status quo is not being maintained.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well if you define it that way, then yes. But status quo would imply unchanging. At least in all the usage I've seen of it, it means keep things from changing. So if they are changing, the status quo is not being maintained.

Well, I'd say in both politics (the inspiration) and game development (the application) the status quo is not quite as absolute as the definition implies. In this case it's more of an abstract concept than a strict set of factors.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

If making the transition from tactical combat with pause is progress, then I am against progress.

Well, I stayed away from the term progressive because it has a positive bias associated with it. 

As far as how your case could help me develop the label system, again I am forced to return to my muse - Victoria 2 - which is a fun game and not just a source for coming up with silly ways to categorize people on the forums of an unrelated developer.

In Victoria 2, conservatives will vote for change in times of high militancy.  Why?  Because if they don't support minor change when the atmosphere - or force of history - demands it, then they will be left in the dustbin of history, and rightly so.  So they don't mind minor changes because they help preserve the core of what they consider the status quo. 

Your willingness to see what others might consider major or core features changed - as long as significant portions of the game you feel are integral to your enjoyment of the game remain intact - then that might fit, would it not?

Just out of curiosity, what is the driving force behind this desire to change the genre so much? While I'll be the first to say I won't complain if combat feels more fluid in DA2, I find it hard in thinking that there is really anything wrong with most of the game mechanics of DAO that needs much changing if at all.

Keep in mind I'm using the PC version in this line of thinking as this type of game tends to be better suited for the PC to begin with imo.

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
When something works you don't completely change the formula. I wonder if you were a fan of Starcraft and if so what you thought of Starcraft2. Other than a new campaign and some new units the sequal is almost identical to the first. And it sold like crazy and everyone is loving it.

We don't know yet just how drastic the changes are from DA:O to DA][, but if it's a far enough departure it's a mistake. And while they'll grab a number of new buyers, they'll lose a lot of us that liked  DA:O. It's not a matter of status quo. Your whole application of that theory is out of whack. It's inaccurate because it only characterizes desires and completely misses the correct motivations.

Not to butt in here, but I don't think AngryPants was saying that there was a status quo.
I think he's saying that "conservatives" favor the status quo-- they want the status quo to be maintained between DAO and DA2. We're not, obviously, and some people clearly don't like DA2 changing the formula. Whether it's ultimately a good idea or not remains to be seen, but naturally since the biggest fans of DAO liked it how it was and want more of the same and also happen to hang out on these forums a lot and be very interested in how Dragon Age develops as a series we'll hear a lot from them.

That doesn't change the fact that DA2 is changing the formula. We could have left it all the same, yes, and indeed Starcraft is an excellent game-- but we're not going that route. Like Mike said, whether we think the changes are that fundamental or not is irrelevant to some folks-- though their view is still largely conjecture and based primarily on their thoughts regarding specific features or RPG's in general, and thus we'll have to take it with a grain of salt. One can predict doom and gloom and a massive departure of dissatisfied fans with nobody to replace them... but I guess that's BioWare's risk to take, isn't it? :)

...

*locking soapbox away*

*Succint.  To the point.  Less is more.*

Ok.

This is not black and white - nor even black and white and gray ... there are not 3 distinct groups of people:
1 - We love all the "changes" in DA2
2 - We will wait and see whether we like the "changes" in DA2
3 - We hate all the "changes" in DA2
(changes in quotes to show that they are perceived changes, imagined changes, or changes told to the public but maybe the public is minunderstanding...)

There are people in all varieties of mixes of liking some and not liking others.
There are people who really like some of the new stuff they've heard about and are kinda iffy on others.
There are people who are indifferent on most changes and will be happy with most anything BioWare puts out (because, despite the variety of games BioWare generates, these people have positive experiences with all of them)
There are people who really dislike some of the stuff they've heard but kind of like other stuff that's being added to DA2.
And there are many more varieties at many levels in there.

Painting with such broadstrokes, on either "side" of the issue (as the sides seem to be drawn and most everyone dumped into one or the other (or the middle of being ignored entirely) - THAT is what the whole "views on change" labeling of "conservative" or "radical" really gets my boat.

It not only oversimplifies the situation, it draws unintended political context to the issue at hand, and it generalizes feelings into nice, neat little packages that I doubt many people would actually fit in.

Drives me absolutely crazy how people continue to treat this like an either / or situation (almost as much as the ones who state their opinions as if they are the defacto reality - "nobody likes silent protagonists, that's a thing of the past!" or "if you like faster paced action you must be a little kid playing on a console" or whatever)

---

Gah, how'd I get up on this soapbox?!?

and i fail again :pinched:

Modifié par MerinTB, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:12 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Your willingness to see what others might consider major or core features changed - as long as significant portions of the game you feel are integral to your enjoyment of the game remain intact - then that might fit, would it not?

Also, strictly speaking, character cutomization, voiceless leads, and freedom of choice actually is something I see as of core importance........ to multiplayer and table top games. Games where you interact with other people and your character is actually experienced and appreciated and the responses are unique and original and change every time you play. Not when you talk to a pre scripted AI. I could make the most interesting character in the world, just to have it spend all it's time talking to a pre scripted AI. What a waste.
I value different features in different places.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Just out of curiosity, what is the driving force behind this desire to change the genre so much? While I'll be the first to say I won't complain if combat feels more fluid in DA2, I find it hard in thinking that there is really anything wrong with most of the game mechanics of DAO that needs much changing if at all.

Keep in mind I'm using the PC version in this line of thinking as this type of game tends to be better suited for the PC to begin with imo.

Well, it depends on what you'd define as key elements of the genre.  I suppose I could start by saying that I enjoy many genres of games on many different levels and I like the idea of being able to enjoy one game on two levels - such as the kind I get out of RPGs from playing a character and shaping a story, and the kind I get out of an FPS, being consumed by something visceral and exciting.  

As long as it can be done without sacrificing too much of what I consider important to either genre, I am in favor of it.  

[the_one_54321]

As much as I love talking about what is or isn't an RPG, that's just as likely to get the thread locked as is politics.

That's why I was focusing more on what was in DA:O that made it DA:O, rather than trying to specify what made DA:O an RPG.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
Painting with such broadstrokes, on either "side" of the issue (as the sides seem to be drawn and most everyone dumped into one or the other (or the middle of being ignored entirely) - THAT is what the whole "views on change" labeling of "conservative" or "radical" really gets my boat.

My four categories are certainly less broad than "troll" or "fanboy."  The middle ground isn't ignored, I explicitly stated in my original post that most people are between conservative and liberal and thus, middle ground.   That being said, how broad would a label of "Centrist" have to be?  It would be pretty pointless to include: Likes some stuff, doesn't like others?  Meh.  

MerinTB wrote...
It not only oversimplifies the situation, it drawns unintended political context to the issue at hand, and it generalizes feelings into nice, neat little packages that I doubt many people would actually fit in.

Um, yeah.  Very rarely will people fit precisely into easy labeling, but given a well-defined set of options they will identify more closely with one than another.  Do I think my options are well-defined?  Eh... they can use some work.  That's what the point of my continuing to refine them as much as I can is.

Furthermore aside from one exception, people have been very good and understanding about seperating the relativistic labels in my posts from contemporary political context.  So I don't think that criticism is particularly valid at this point, though that may well change at any moment.

MerinTB wrote...
Drives me absolutely crazy how people continue to treat this like an either / or situation (almost as much as the ones who state their opinions as if they are the defacto reality - "nobody likes silent protagonists, that's a thing of the past!" or "if you like faster paced action you must be a little kid playing on a console" or whatever)

I agree with you entirely here.  The original impetus for my post was responding to someone who was annoyed with being labeled afraid of change.  Furthermore the framing of opinions as fact is of particular annoyance to me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:16 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Just out of curiosity, what is the driving force behind this desire to change the genre so much? While I'll be the first to say I won't complain if combat feels more fluid in DA2, I find it hard in thinking that there is really anything wrong with most of the game mechanics of DAO that needs much changing if at all.

Keep in mind I'm using the PC version in this line of thinking as this type of game tends to be better suited for the PC to begin with imo.

Well, it depends on what you'd define as key elements of the genre.  I suppose I could start by saying that I enjoy many genres of games on many different levels and I like the idea of being able to enjoy one game on two levels - such as the kind I get out of RPGs from playing a character and shaping a story, and the kind I get out of an FPS, being consumed by something visceral and exciting.  

As long as it can be done without sacrificing too much of what I consider important to either genre, I am in favor of it.  

Much like The_one in the post above, character customization, voiceless leads that allow the player to define their own character, and freedom of choice are core and shouldn't go away. The ability to pause, use tactics, assign orders to my party and make changes depending on the course a battle is taking is also very core to me.

I don't have an issue with something looking visceral as long as it doesn't cross that line of destroying suspension of belief and looking just flat out silly. So to hear that they slowed down the speed IRT 2 handers was really great to hear, for example.

[David Gaider]

MerinTB wrote...
It not only oversimplifies the situation, it drawns unintended political context to the issue at hand, and it generalizes feelings into nice, neat little packages that I doubt many people would actually fit in.

You mean sort of like how everyone who is at all supportive of DA2's direction, or who objects to bashing, is a deliberately obtuse "fanboy" and how everyone who is at all critical of DA2's direction, or who objects to blank cheques being offered to developers, is an entitled "troll"?

Drives me absolutely crazy how people continue to treat this like an either / or situation (almost as much as the ones who state their opinions as if they are the defacto reality - "nobody likes silent protagonists, that's a thing of the past!" or "if you like faster paced action you must be a little kid playing on a console" or whatever)

Relax. Nobody's trying to suggest people need to be divvied up into their categories and forced to wear them like name badges. All AngryPants was offering was a way of identifying some of the different forces at work on the forums and why they tend to argue so much. It's like people speaking different languages and yet who all think they're speaking the same one.

Is it useful? Not really-- nobody's going to stop calling people fanboys or trolls or "telling it like it is"-- but it's also nothing to get up in arms about. Nobody was telling you to buy ranks in Militant Conservatism when you leveled up or anything. You're free to spec however you wish, I'm sure.

[Ortaya Alevli]

If we were to only discuss "useful" stuff here, DA2 forums would be pretty much barren. Just saying.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Much like The_one in the post above, character customization, voiceless leads that allow the player to define their own character, and freedom of choice are core and shouldn't go away. The ability to pause, use tactics, assign orders to my party and make changes depending on the course a battle is taking is also very core to me.

I don't have an issue with something looking visceral as long as it doesn't cross that line of destroying suspension of belief and looking just flat out silly. So to hear that they slowed down the speed IRT 2 handers was really great to hear, for example.

I'll pick out just one example and explain my point of view.

I always found voiceless leads as immersion breaking.  I found the notion of selecting a line of text and hearing the NPC react to me as clumsy, something that was an unfortunate result of the limitation of the medium.  The notion of being able to hear characters have a genuine back-and-forth discussion of a kind that the dialogue wheel allows increased my immersion in the game in three ways:  The pacing of the conversation when the dialogue wheel choice is made in a timely manner, being able to hear both sides of the conversation, and not knowing precisely what my character was going to say.  The last point is one of key contention with people who dislike the feature, but it drew me in.  

I don't expect everyone to feel that way, but I would certainly object to anyone describing it as somehow being dumber or hand-holding.

David Gaider wrote...
All AngryPants was offering was a way of identifying some of the different forces at work on the forums and why they tend to argue so much.

Precisely.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:23 .

[the_one_54321]

David Gaider wrote...
 Nobody was telling you to buy ranks in Militant Conservatism when you leveled up or anything. You're free to spec however you wish, I'm sure.

I didn't take the skateboard proficiency in the fifth grade....

(+100 approval with the_one for anyone who gets this refernece)

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Much like The_one in the post above, character customization, voiceless leads that allow the player to define their own character, and freedom of choice are core and shouldn't go away. The ability to pause, use tactics, assign orders to my party and make changes depending on the course a battle is taking is also very core to me.

I don't have an issue with something looking visceral as long as it doesn't cross that line of destroying suspension of belief and looking just flat out silly. So to hear that they slowed down the speed IRT 2 handers was really great to hear, for example.

I'll pick out just one example and explain my point of view.

I always found voiceless leads as immersion breaking.  I found the notion of selecting a line of text and hearing the NPC react to me as clumsy, something that was an unfortunate result of the limitation of the medium.  The notion of being able to hear characters have a genuine back-and-forth discussion of a kind that the dialogue wheel allows increased my immersion in the game in three ways:  The pacing of the conversation when the dialogue wheel choice is made in a timely manner, being able to hear both sides of the conversation, and not knowing precisely what my character was going to say.  The last point is one of key contention with people who dislike the feature, but it drew me in.  

I don't expect everyone to feel that way, but I would certainly object to anyone describing it as somehow being dumber or hand-holding.

I don't find a voiced protagonist dumbing down or hand holding either, it does however limit my ability to set my own tone and emotions behind my character, and at the same time due to the way Bioware presents dialog choices by means of paraphrasing, in some ways has the player completely guessing at what their character is going to say. Which to me somewhat diminishes any actual roleplaying being able to take place because you put yourself at the mercy of the writters.

[the_one_54321]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Much like The_one in the post above, character customization, voiceless leads that allow the player to define their own character, and freedom of choice are core and shouldn't go away.

You're not directly missquoting me, but you're kind of taking my post out of context.
It actually doesn't bother me that Hawke has a name or will be voiced. It would have bothered me if DA][ was multiplayer like NWN was.

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
 Nobody was telling you to buy ranks in Militant Conservatism when you leveled up or anything. You're free to spec however you wish, I'm sure.

I didn't take the skateboard proficiency in the fifth grade....

(+100 approval with the_one for anyone who gets this refernece)

I didn't get the reference myself, but I can't stop thinking about Willy Beamish after reading this.

[David Gaider]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I didn't take the skateboard proficiency in the fifth grade....

(+100 approval with the_one for anyone who gets this refernece)

Sounds like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World to me.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

the_one_54321 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Much like The_one in the post above, character customization, voiceless leads that allow the player to define their own character, and freedom of choice are core and shouldn't go away.

You're not directly missquoting me, but you're kind of taking my post out of context.
It actually doesn't bother me that Hawke has a name or will be voiced. It would have bothered me if DA][ was multiplayer like NWN was.

Sorry I didn't mean to take you out of context, just that I had similar ideas of what was core for my enjoyment of an RPG like DA.  

NWN had single player too though, HoTU was actually a really good sp campaign I thought.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Darth Gaider wrote...
All AngryPants was offering was a way of identifying some of the different forces at work on the forums and why they tend to argue so much.

Precisely.

You see!? AngryPants! Darth Gaider has spoken.

[Mallissin]

Go to bed!



It's my turn with the Internetz!