539 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

I wonder where monica83 is from...her construction and translitteration suggest a neo-latin mother tongue

Modifié par crimzontearz, 04 novembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[Eldragon]

FedericoV wrote...
...
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.

Exactly. An Action-RPG can be an RPG, so long as the traditional role playing aspects don't get cut. Story, Side quests, character customization, etc. I'm glad DA2 sped up the action a bit. One of the things I like about Fable is the pace of  the fighting, yet it still felt like an RPG. whereas Diablo never felt like an RPG to me, just a dungeon crawler.

The real question is if the depth of side quests and character customization are still there in DA2.

[pizoxuat]

FedericoV wrote...

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).

Old fart checking in.  I remembering the flailing and gnashing of teeth over BG not being turn-based quite clearly.

[maxernst]

Eldragon wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
...
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.

Exactly. An Action-RPG can be an RPG, so long as the traditional role playing aspects don't get cut. Story, Side quests, character customization, etc. I'm glad DA2 sped up the action a bit. One of the things I like about Fable is the pace of  the fighting, yet it still felt like an RPG. whereas Diablo never felt like an RPG to me, just a dungeon crawler.

The real question is if the depth of side quests and character customization are still there in DA2.

Well, I would agree with you, but it depends on what you found enjoyable about the game.  Personally, I hated the infinity engine passionately (pathfinding %#@%^!) and D&D is far from my favorite game system (character customization is hardly a strength of the system) but enjoyed BG2 and Planescape:Torment in spite of it.  If (hypothetically, I'm not really expecting this) the combat became more twitch-based, players who enjoyed BG2 primarily for its combat may not enjoy it.  I would argue that what they're missing from BG is not roleplaying elements but strategic elements, though.

[Quercus]

I wish for more Turn-Base RPGs... they seem almost extinct.
The last Turn-Base RPG I've gotten my hands on is Atalier Rorona. A nice light hearted RPG.

I wish more japanese developers will focus more on an advance Turn-Base mechanic, instead of trying to implement "action". Ofcause western developers are free to do so as well, but that's not their cup of tea apparently.

[the_one_54321]

I dislike that the features most people attribute to RPGs can be found in any genre of game in some shape or form. (often without even much digging or interpretation) And I especially dislike how the industry encourages this terminology chaos so that they can profit from it through confusing marketing jargon that focuses on the "it words" or what sounds cool.

[Nerevar-as]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I dislike that the features most people attribute to RPGs can be found in any genre of game in some shape or form. (often without even much digging or interpretation) And I especially dislike how the industry encourages this terminology chaos so that they can profit from it through confusing marketing jargon that focuses on the "it words" or what sounds cool.

2-3 years ago every other game with fights and an inventory was a RPG. Now it´s a term to run away from as fast as possible. WTH happened?

[the_one_54321]

Perceptions change, marketing chases what's popular in terminology and the vast majority of gamers don't ever stop to think about what features actually separate one type of game from other types of games. These days they are all starting to look mostly alike. Just look at ME and ME2. I liked them, but while playing ME2 I may as well have been playing Gears of War with a pause-for-ability-use feature. Doesn't make it a bad game but it makes all the labels really bass ackwards.

[Nerevar-as]

I don´t think Gears is 40+ hours long and has much player input in the story, but I get your meaning.

[MerinTB]

Shiroukai wrote...
I wish for more Turn-Base RPGs... they seem almost extinct.

I'm right there with you.

Two turn-based RPGs coming out, Age of Decadence and Dead State, both sound promising though.

[the_one_54321]

I really don't think I spent 40 hours on ME2 and that was on hard setting and completing every side quest I found. I loved ME2 but it was hardly what I would call complex, open, or demanding. And the UI is pretty strictly a 3rd Person Shooter with some side features and a very loose "level up" system.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

Who cares though? ... I don't look at the game as seriously as others, I guess.

You answer your own question.

You don't care, but you aren't as serious about the games as others.

Because you are easy-going and will accept pretty much anything "as long as it's good" doesn't mean that others who don't like certain gamestyles should just accept them because you are easy-going and don't understand the motivations of others.

----

I think this is the major problem with these discussions - one side has a problem and doesn't fully accept that others don't, and the other side has no problem and doesn't fully accept the the first side does.

How about, like taste in music or books or movies, you can just accept that some people don't enjoy all kinds of video games?
And then, when someone says they don't like something... yes, of course you can still say "well, that doesn't matter to me" or "I actually like that" but it's probably not the best to come back with "who cares" or the like..
since...
well, the person who just stated the problem they have is clearly at least one person who cares.

Ok?

Cool.
"

[Meltemph]

the other side has no problem and doesn't fully accept the the first side does.

I have no problem with people having issues, and your response is silly. I never suggested others can't have different tastes, but does not mean I can't disagree. Plus, I would say most of the time it is those who have a problem that think it is just crazy that people don't have a problem with it.

but it's probably not the best to come back with "who cares" or the like..

We were talking at that point, about how we look at the games. So my response was in context to me personally, why you decided to make that point, an issue, I can only assume your were trying to "snipe".



"Who cares though? That is how I look at it."



That is what I said and it was in context to how I take changes in gameplay as long as it is good. But by all means, keep seeing problems where there is none.

[the_one_54321]

Well when you use phrases like "who cares" no matter what the context, it implies that no one cares about it. Actually, a lot of people care about it.

[Meltemph]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well when you use phrases like "who cares" no matter what the context, it implies that no one cares about it. Actually, a lot of people care about it.

Nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.  Obviously people care, people care with just about anything.  To assume I meant that as an all encompassing statement is silly.   When people say "who cares" rarely does it mean, nobody cares, because it is quite obvious someone will care about it, no matter what it is.  

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[the_one_54321]

But what I'm saying is that lots of people care about it. That's quite different from "at least one or two people care about it."

[Meltemph]

But what I'm saying is that lots of people care about it.

Based on what? Your last count on the forums, about how many people care? Besides what is the point of you brining it up?

I mean it as:

A reply to an unimportant or irrelevant statement, indicating indifference on the part of the speaker

It is a non-issue for me, that is how I look at the issues we were talking about, in context to my meaning. The only reason to point out that little spot in my post and try and harp on it, is just for arguing's sake with intentions to read more into it.

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[the_one_54321]

Based on how often it's brought up.

I bring it up because language effects what others perceive. If what you want to convey is that you don't care then say "I don't care." Then no one will misunderstand. Saying "who cares" implies that most people don't care, which is untrue.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321, where are you from? It's quite common for an American (and maybe some others) to use "who cares?" the way Meltemph did. It's just the way that idiom is used. It's not supposed to be taken literally.

And yes, "I care" is a perfectly valid response to "who cares?"

Edit: sure, you can go around arguing that the common usage is improper and should stop. Sylvius does that all the time. The problem is, you will lose that argument.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Meltemph]

Based on how often it's brought up.

Well then, that right there proves it!

If what you want to convey is that you don't care then say "I don't care."

Really? So now I have to go through someone to use a phrase with defined definitions? Sorry, not going to happen. If you don't like how I said it that is fine, but I'm not going to not use the phrase because some(you) don't like how I used it.

Then no one will misunderstand.

Doubt that, people will use and find anything that they perceive can add validity or importance to a view they cling to.

Saying "who cares" implies that most people don't care,

How you take it and what it actually implies is 2 different things.

which is untrue.

According to your very scientific response of "because of how much it is brought up", in regards to forums, right? Not exactly the best/accurate way to find a majority if you ask me. I guess we will have to see, come the launch of the game, how many people actually care though.

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:20 .

[the_one_54321]

I'm in Southwest America. I know it's common usage but term implies that no one (or very few people) care, as I have understood it. When lots of people clearly care and you say "who cares" it sounds dismissive in a fairly inaccurate way.

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I'm in Southwest America. I know it's common usage but term implies that no one (or very few people) care, as I have understood it. When lots of people clearly care and you say "who cares" it sounds dismissive in a fairly inaccurate way.

This I'm in northeast america and saying "who cares?" is usually rude and dismissive.

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'm in Southwest America. I know it's common usage but term implies that no one (or very few people) care, as I have understood it. When lots of people clearly care and you say "who cares" it sounds dismissive in a fairly inaccurate way.

This I'm in northeast america and saying "who cares?" is usually rude and dismissive.

Yeah, that's usually part of it too. My take has been that it's akin to saying "no one cares about this so shut up." 
Like I mentioned above just say "I don't care" and suddenly it's not nearly as rude and it looses the entire "no one cares" implication.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I'm in Southwest America. I know it's common usage but term implies that no one (or very few people) care, as I have understood it. When lots of people clearly care and you say "who cares" it sounds dismissive in a fairly inaccurate way.

OK, so you are pulling a Sylvius here.

The phrase is meant to sound dismissive; that's the point of using it.  It's about one step down from saying "whatever." 'Whatever" is more dismissive because it implies that you're not even worth disagreeing with, of course.

But talking about accuracy is nonsense. It's not used to state that no one is on the other side - the phrase simply can't ever be used that way because there's no opportunity to use it if no one is on the other side of the debate.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 novembre 2010 - 05:27 .

[Meltemph]

This I'm in northeast america and saying "who cares?" is usually rude and dismissive.

I guess I am around people less uptight then, I would have to guess. Since the way I used it is the most common(using the actual defined meaning of it), with the people I have been around...