539 réponses à ce sujet

[ErichHartmann]

I played BGII for the awesome storyline. Gameplay was a lesser interest for me.

[Onyx Jaguar]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I have yet to get to the awesome of saving up some money, getting killed numerous times by a boss and then purchasing an uber weapon that only works once. Going to that boss, pressing a button to which something awesome happened and that boss was dead.

All games should dare to be that awesome. Like a 200 sovereign magic rod or something. Would be glorious.

What's even awesomer is defeating a super hard boss without any legendary or expensive equipment and barely surviving. You know, like adding drama and achievement. However, I do enjoy entertainment and just having fun w/o worrying about challenges, I play BW games after all. ZING!

Yes but when every single game is like that, the one game where you fight an impossible boss and think "ima try this" and it actually works ends up more gratifying in a way

[Daerog]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Yes but when every single game is like that, the one game where you fight an impossible boss and think "ima try this" and it actually works ends up more gratifying in a way

You're right. I like it when a boss isn't like the rest and is interesting because of its mechanics or because it is seen as "impossible" or whatever, makes it more like an event.

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

I take it that you refer to complex as problems which are in the style of timed phychometrics/aptitude/numeracy tests etc, where the problems may be easy but time is ticking.

No, complexity has many was of presenting itself, but "planning ahead" or "adjusting in the moment" are not more complex then the other, it largely depends on how they are handled.

I was referring to complexity purely from a decision tree breadth&depth point of view to make my position more clear.

 My point was that just because they change how the complexity of combat works does not mean it is less complex, only changed. now whether you like the change, that is something different, I would say.

Either way, that is why I said, the only thing you can do is judge it based on what it is and not what you want it to be.

DAO was not complex, but in comparing it to its competition it was more complex than the rest.

What competition is that? I honestly don't know what you are comparing it to, so kinda lost with this comment.

BG II e.g. had a greater variety of mobs and that added complexity,

While I would agree, it really is not a fair comparison, BG had a fricking monsters manual to pull from. DA is literally a from scratch setting.

I found BG II more strategically interesting than BG I.

Agree.

My initial hope was that DA2, at least for hardmode, would add a bit of salt & pepper in mob tactics, instead of going the "push a button & awesome stuff happens" route.

I agree variety in mobs is always a plus in terms of adding a variety on how to deal with each situation, but if they just mix up the fight sequences and have proper tactics(robust AI) to the enemies, then it could eaily be just as if not more complex. Now a days you don't have to be as fixated on mob variety if the AI is very good. I guess we will see how it goes, but I can't see it being any less complex then DAO, I mean, it is not even sounding less complex to me.

 Ok I see what you mean, I just consider the breadth&depth of the decision tree, I classify complexity in terms of "computational complexity", in the strict sense, looking exclusively at the problem itself, not including the limitations of the decision maker.

 The other games would be the rest of (action) sp rpg games out there, where I don't see complexity. Remember , I gauge complexity in terms of breadth&depth of the decision tree.

 AI can make up for allot of things, but still resistances & "niche"-requirements per mob have their place imo.

"DA is literally a from scratch setting." Yes, they had to make whole IP from scratch, on their own. In DA2, I had the bar set high though, as in a sequel I was hoping they'd do the extra step and implement things like these. Going towards the other direction is partly why I'm disappointed from what I've seen so far.

[Lyssistr]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I played BGII for the awesome storyline. Gameplay was a lesser interest for me.

Fair enough, but many people focus on gameplay. Again, it's not that I mind aRPGs, it's simply that some people got into DA solely to get this sort of gameplay, which is kinda rare these days.

[MerinTB]

Can I press a button and have DA2 play more like Icewind Dale?



Cause, to me, that'd be awesome.

[Meltemph]

breadth&depth

What do you see in DA2 that dosnt have this where DAO did? Their breadth and depth in terms of what to do in any given situation was quite limited. And nothing that DAO did has been proven or even resembled something that DA2 can not do. Where are you drawing this conclusion?

but still resistances & "niche"-requirements per mob have their place imo.

But that is not complexity in and of itself, it is just a form of...

as in a sequel I was hoping they'd do the extra step and implement things like these. Going towards the other direction is partly why I'm disappointed from what I've seen so far.

But what have you seen that shows that DA2 will be less then DAO? What point of reference are you using, in terms of actual gameplay and not hearsay? You keep saying breadth and depth as in what I was insinuating can not have that, but I really am not understand your reasoning as to why it can not have that.

Seems to me you are "pigeon holing" DA2 in a corner, simply to due so, since we have little to no info to assume anything different in terms of complexity. In fact, the only thing we really have is that combat will be more precise and faster. However if the the variety and "complexity" remains the same, then that would mean that DA2 has a stronger chance of being more difficult, specially on the higher difficulties.

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

breadth&depth

What do you see in DA2 that dosnt have this where DAO did? Their breadth and depth in terms of what to do in any given situation was quite limited. And nothing that DAO have been proven or even resembled something that DA2 can not do. Where are you drawing this conclusion?

but still resistances & "niche"-requirements per mob have their place imo.

But that is not complexity in and of itself, it is just a form of...

as in a sequel I was hoping they'd do the extra step and implement things like these. Going towards the other direction is partly why I'm disappointed from what I've seen so far.

But what have you seen that shows that DA2 will be less then DAO? What point of reference are you using, in terms of actual gameplay and not hearsay? You keep saying breadth and depth as in what I was insinuating can not have that, but I really am not understand your reasoning as to why it can not have that.

Seems to me you are "pigeon holing" DA2 in a corner, simply to due so, since we have little to no info to assume anything different in terms of complexity. In fact, the only thing we really have is that combat will be more precise and faster. However if the the variety and "complexity" remains the same, then that would mean that DA2 has a stronger chance of being more difficult, specially on the higher difficulties.

They're ****ing the strategic top-down view and Bio calls it an aRPG where you push buttons & awesome stuff happens.  Doesn't sound at all like the game I want to play in terms of combat, the camera alone (which wont go as far up) is good enough a reason(*), if I can't get the sort of gameplay I seek, why give my money for it?

 Without a combat similar to BG, I don't really care neither about Thedas nor about playing an aRPG. I pay pizza hut to eat pizza not tandoori chicken.

(*) because, seriously, without a proper strategic view for what complexity are we talking about.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:31 .

[Meltemph]

They're ****ing the strategic top-down view and Bio call it an aRPG where you push buttons & awesome stuff happens.

Seems a bit hyperbolic and a bit out of context to apply certain comments fully on the entirety of the game. As for the top down view... Camera angles are not that big of a deal to me so eh, I never used top down unless I was trying to manipulate the engines faults to my advantage. For example: being able to see the other side of rooms I have not been in and ect, which I almost never did because I considered it near cheating, to me. .

Doesn't sound at all like the game I want to play in terms of combat, the camera alone (which wont go as far up) is good enough a reason(*), if I can't get the sort of gameplay I seek, why give my money for it?

I agree, that you should not buy a game you don't think you will like, yet, you are showing interest by being here, and you even said you thought the game will still be good, so I figured you still wanted to buy the game or planned on playing it...

Without a combat similar to BG, I don't really care neither about Thedas nor about playing an aRPG. I pay pizza hat to eat pizza not tandoori chicken.



(*) because, seriously, without a proper strategic view for what complexity are we talking about.

So the gripes are mainly about the top down view... ok then.

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

They're ****ing the strategic top-down view and Bio call it an aRPG where you push buttons & awesome stuff happens.

Seems a bit hyperbolic and a bit out of context to apply certain comments fully on the entirety of the game. As for the top down view... Camera angles are not that big of a deal to me so eh, I never used top down unless I was trying to manipulate the engines faults to my advantage. For example: being able to see the other side of rooms I have not been in and ect, which I almost never did because I considered it near cheating, to me. .

Doesn't sound at all like the game I want to play in terms of combat, the camera alone (which wont go as far up) is good enough a reason(*), if I can't get the sort of gameplay I seek, why give my money for it?

I agree, that you should not buy a game you don't think you will like, yet, you are showing interest by being here, and you even said you thought the game will still be good, so I figured you still wanted to buy the game or planned on playing it...

Without a combat similar to BG, I don't really care neither about Thedas nor about playing an aRPG. I pay pizza hat to eat pizza not tandoori chicken.

(*) because, seriously, without a proper strategic view for what complexity are we talking about.

So the gripes are mainly about the top down view... ok then.

 I played the whole game top-down, as if it were BG III. It's not only the camera, as an isolated feature however, it's the signal that, this mode of play is no longer a primary one, it probably won't be how the game is supposed to be played. Keep in mind that DA attracted me in the first place because of this, I never objected to VO'd protagonist, to dialogue wheel etc, I find these changes just fine (leaving them as they were would also be fine tbh). Also one thing I probably should mention is that I never buy an aRPGs without multi-coop, at least not until it reaches a super-low price.

 Tbh I shouldn't be posting more here, you're right on that and yes I don't expect Bio to make a ****ty game, but still I pay pizza hut to eat pizza, for tandoori I prefer different restaurants.

[Lyssistr]

 By the way Meltemph, I think it's the 3rd time we have the exact same chat within the last 3-4 months. Going through the exact same route & ending up at the camera and how it relates to gameplay. 

Modifié par Lyssistr, 04 novembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[Meltemph]

Eh, I guess I am just too laid back and like to many genre's/games to not play a game I think will be good. I mean, I'm not even a big racer fan, but every-time a Grand Turismo game comes out I buy it can play/enjoy the hell out of it. I guess it is perspective and preference, but I don't really buy a game because of the genre, I just buy it if I think it looks good/fun.



I just like games, I don't care about the genre as long as it is good. There are things I could pick apart in every game I have ever played, but I don't care to, because I enjoy them enough. I dunno, maybe I just have low expectations, but from the sounds of it, I definitely would not want the expectations some of you have, cause I would not be enjoying to many games.



To each their own, but I like the fact that I can enjoy any game as long as the quality(relative to what I think, I guess) is good.

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

Eh, I guess I am just too laid back and like to many genre's/games to not play a game I think will be good. I mean, I'm not even a big racer fan, but every-time a Grand Turismo game comes out I buy it can play/enjoy the hell out of it. I guess it is perspective and preference, but I don't really buy a game because of the genre, I just buy it if I think it looks good/fun.

I just like games, I don't care about the genre as long as it is good. There are things I could pick apart in every game I have ever played, but I don't care to, because I enjoy them enough. I dunno, maybe I just have low expectations, but from the sounds of it, I definitely would not want the expectations some of you have, cause I would not be enjoying to many games.

To each their own, but I like the fact that I can enjoy any game as long as the quality(relative to what I think, I guess) is good.

Want more ? While I like all SC II features, I'm not buying now coz I want to play SP campaign as a coherent continuous story, not in fragments.

 Seriously, I'm easy with most games I follow because usually, the next elder scrolls game(*) is like an elder scrolls game, Diablo III will be a Diablo game, the next WoW expansion is like a WoW expansion, the next Civilization is like a Civilization game, the next HL II xpac is going to be like an HL game.

 Note that I have mentioned quite a variety of games & styles, my "beef" with DA2 is that *within the same franchise* they took away the elements which made it a "return to their roots"/spiritual successor to BG etc .

 E.g. for Mass Effect I don't care if they make it a pure shooter, I never bought ME to play an RPG in the first place, I bought it to play a sci-fi game, I don't care what they do with RPG elements there, it's not why I play ME, but I bought DA:O mainly for the old-school feel, especially in combat. If they remove the elements that got you into something, there's very little incentive to keep playing new episodes of a franchise.

(*) don't enjoy the ES franchise too much tho tbh, I find it super boring

Modifié par Lyssistr, 04 novembre 2010 - 06:24 .

[Meltemph]

Who cares though? That is how I look at it. If it is a good game, I could give 2 poops what the last one was like as long as I like the new one. And even still I'm not seeing any significant changed in DA2, but I don't look at the game as seriously as others, I guess.

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

Who cares though? That is how I look at it. If it is a good game, I could give 2 poops what the last one was like as long as I like the new one. And even still I'm not seeing any significant changed in DA2, but I don't look at the game as seriously as others, I guess.

Well, aRPG without multi coop is kinda meh for my tastes anyhow. No matter if it's good or bad in terms of SP campaign. Games in the style of "pushing buttons quickly & seeing awesomeness happen" usually take me one weekend to finish & I never go back. I see value in them only when I can play with other people, online.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 04 novembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[AlanC9]

Lyssistr wrote...
 I played the whole game top-down, as if it were BG III. It's not only the camera, as an isolated feature however, it's the signal that, this mode of play is no longer a primary one, it probably won't be how the game is supposed to be played.

When you say "mode of play," do you just mean the iso camera, or is there some sort of bigger concept that you want and think you won't get?

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 novembre 2010 - 07:34 .

[Lyssistr]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]Lyssistr wrote...
 I played the whole game top-down, as if it were BG III. It's not only the camera, as an isolated feature however, it's the signal that, this mode of play is no longer a primary one, it probably won't be how the game is supposed to be played.]/quote]

When you say "mode of play," do you just mean the iso camera, or is there some sort of bigger concept that you want and think you won't get?

[/quote]

 I think the game will no longer play similarly (yes! that word) to BG/BG II in terms of combat. Without the proper camera view, this sort of gameplay is unlikely to be the way it's supposed to be played.

[Meltemph]

Well, aRPG without multi coop is kinda meh for my tastes anyhow.

aRPG the meaning of it anywho is so broke it is silly, but still what was DAO? Turn Based? Hack and Slash? Strat? I'm not seeing some massive departure from DAO. Seems more like hyperbole to me. But I also think the animations look a bit fast, but look fine.

Although, when people say aRPG, I think Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, or the Tales series so nothing but good comes to my mind.

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 novembre 2010 - 06:32 .

[Morroian]

Meltemph wrote...

Well, aRPG without multi coop is kinda meh for my tastes anyhow.

aRPG the meaning of it anywho is so broke it is silly, but still what was DAO? Turn Based? Hack and Slash? Strat?

Same as DA2, action rpg.

[AlanC9]

Lyssistr wrote...

 I think the game will no longer play similarly (yes! that word) to BG/BG II in terms of combat. Without the proper camera view, this sort of gameplay is unlikely to be the way it's supposed to be played.

I don't know why you'd assume that. DAO plays the same even when you don't zoom the camera out, and there are an awful lot of times where it's easier to see what's going on from the OTS view.

[In Exile]

Lyssistr wrote...

 Also not all changes are evolutionary, e.g. removing the possibility for a proper top down view e.g. isn't evolving anything, just removing.

Giving you a free-roam camera is better. In DA:O you were only allowed a free-roam camera if you used isometric, but isometric had a tremendous downside in that it cut your camera angle, so you could only see what was within the top-down LoS. To get depth perception, you had to rely on the over-the-shoulder cam. Since I liked my artillery mages, I tended to use over-the-shoulder way more than isometric to get the right range.

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
DA:O was supposed to the spiritual
successor to BG, and it was for the most part. They never made promises
about future DA games being in the same vein. My point was simply that
games evolve over time, generally that means that games become more
refined or improved in some ways like better graphics, different
mechanics, smoother gameplay or what-have-you.

What does that mean, though? I followed the development of DA:O and you know what the constant complaint was? Bioware was selling out to the masses with DA:O and removing all of the great things that made BG the best RPG of all time.

Here is a list of things criticized:

1) The origins will kill role-play
2) Not being able to kill any NPC anywhere is absurd
3) No tetris inventory
4) No death-mechanic - injury is stupid
5) Mana ? WTF? Where my Vancian magic at?
6) Why can't I multiclass a fighter/cleric?
7) Health Mana/Stamina regeneration? - Dumbed Down

I mean, I could go on for ages. DA:O was heavily criticized as an over-simplified MMO and Bioware was constantly criticized for selling out to the masses and producing something that could never be a great RPG.

I'm not saying Bioware isn't neccesarily moving even further away from what BG/BGII was with DA2. What I am saying, though, is that whether or not DA:O was a spiritual succesor to BG is very much up in the air, and as someone who followed DA:O for years, it was not something people said about the game as it got closer to release.

[WidowMaker9394]

I'm okay with this.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Monica83 wrote...

I agree with you on thing i love of BG its the variety of ennemy you can see something different when you go in the dungeons danger is in every side you must be carefull looking for traps or hidden ennemy..Not the banal traps of origin but the one that can be Really dangerous.. Like the magic ones that turns your party member in a well defined statue lol

Yes, Baldur's Gate have great gameplay and a good variety of enemies and I love the games. Baldur's Gate II is my favorite game ever. However, the reason I keep going back and playing through it again and again is not for great gameplay and enemies. For me it's the fan made NPC mods that's really made the game immortal. Without them I would not play the game nearly as often. 

More on topic though.. Yes, they have said action RPG but from reading what the devs have written I don't see it as something bad. Battle in DA:O was kind of slow-paced at times and companions reaction time was even worse. I'm excited to see some gameplay but I'm positive so far 

[soteria]

The references you cited are not from Bio tho, this time it's Bio advertising DA2 as an aRPG. Bio pushed DAO as a return to their roots, a spiritual successor, a game that would revive old school RPGs etc.

You didn't read very carefully. The very first reference says, "According to the Bioware guy showing me the game..." And as many other people have commented, Bioware did use that term in the old forums (which are gone). I don't know why you insist on assuming that THIS time "action RPG" means something different from what it meant in DA:O's case.

[FedericoV]

Lyssistr wrote...

 However, I think it's pretty clear BG wasn't an aRPG.

Maybe right now it's pretty clear. At the times I remember many old school RPG fans who heavily criticized BG because it  was in real time and it heavily focused on combat, even defining it a diablo clone or an aRPG. Other old farts like me can confirm . And one of the reason of the success of BG I was that it appealed in some way to the D&D and Diablo fan base too (infact, it outsold any Golden Box AD&D game if I remember well).

As I've said before, BG was something in between classical RPGs and aRPGs. Then, you can like DA2 direction or not and it's not designed to be a spiritual successor to BG, but the aRPG label at the end should have not a lot to do with you disliking the game.

Modifié par FedericoV, 04 novembre 2010 - 12:45 .