539 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

GamerM wrote...
 DAO and DAO 2 can't be compared with Diablo.

Thats the problem with slinging around a loaded term like "action RPG" without being able to see any gameplay to make up our own mind. To some, an action RPG might be like Origins. To others, it might be like Diablo. And yet they're very different games. Its just games marketing muddying the waters by constantly saying how "action game X now has RPG elements!" And then when "RPG game Z now has action elements!"

WIthout any gameplay to show what these confounding labels actually mean, all they do is get people unnecessarily ticked off or giddy.

[mellifera]

Why does it fall on BioWare's shoulders to bring back the cRPG? If they want to go a different direction, they have no real reason to continue creating games in a style they don't want to use.

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Diablo strikes me as a "dungeon crawler" for whatever that's worth.
I really have a hard time considering any RPG that doesn't have twitch mechanics as an "action" RPG. The outcomes are still heavily determined by dice rolls, if not exclusively determined by them.

Is there any a-rpgish game out there where everything is not determined by stats & rolls? WoW does this as well, is it an "old school" RPG?

 The point of mentioning Diablo is that turning DAO into aRPG is alienating the initial purpose of this franchise as much as if Diablo were announced to be turn based.

[Brockololly]

Chris Priestly wrote...

To be honest, I never played Deus Ex.

Turn in your gamer ID card this second. I don't even know you.

[upsettingshorts]

Lyssistr wrote...
Is there any a-rpgish game out there where everything is not determined by stats & rolls? WoW does this as well, is it an "old school" RPG?

Not really no.  But if I aim my rifle six feet to the left of the target in Deus Ex, Mass Effect 2, or Fallout 3 I am not hitting the target.  Twitch changes things.

Lyssistr wrote...
The point of mentioning Diablo is that turning DAO into aRPG is alienating the initial purpose of this franchise as much as if Diablo were announced to be turn based.

The initial purpose according to whom?  If you had said, "what drew me to the series in the first place" then I'd have no grounds for disagreeing with you, and neither would Bioware.

[Lyssistr]

yukidama wrote...

Why does it fall on BioWare's shoulders to bring back the cRPG? If they want to go a different direction, they have no real reason to continue creating games in a style they don't want to use.

 What happened? after Ray calling it (again)  today an aRPG the issue is no longer if people call it as such but rather why shouldn't it be?

 Again, the thing with DA franchise is that it was supposed to be about bringing back cRPGs.

[slimgrin]

Brockololly wrote...

That notion of striving towards some homogenous mish mash game that maybe loses out on core features of the more "old school" games in their resepctive genres, isn't that appealing to me. Having diversity in games and how you interact with the story in games (silent PC) is A GOOD THING!  Not every game needs to be VO everything with dialogue wheel.

Well, this I understand. Blending genres can result in watered down games or worse yet, clones.  I love iso view, and old school tactical play, as well as the silent protagonist. But until we see pc gameplay, we won't know if anything was truly sacrificed in their new approach.

Modifié par slimgrin, 03 novembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[Daerog]

Lyssistr wrote...
 What happened? after Ray calling it (again)  today an aRPG the issue is no longer if people call it as such but rather why shouldn't it be?

 Again, the thing with DA franchise is that it was supposed to be about bringing back cRPGs.

No, it was supposed to be the spiritual successor to BG according to its marketing campaign (emphasis on marketting), not be the Messiah for cRPGs.

[Addai]

Brockololly wrote...

That notion of striving towards some homogenous mish mash game that maybe loses out on core features of the more "old school" games in their resepctive genres, isn't that appealing to me. Having diversity in games and how you interact with the story in games (silent PC) is A GOOD THING!  Not every game needs to be VO everything with dialogue wheel.

The voice of Morrigan speaks truly.

Being back in the Fallout universe lately, I'm glad they beefed up companion interaction and story, but it's still lackluster in comparison to DAO.  It's all about the combat. It's sad to think my favorite deep RPG franchise was going to remain what it is rather than moving towards a hybrid.  IMO it rarely works out well when you try to do what you're not good at rather than capitalizing on strengths.

[mellifera]

Lyssistr wrote...

yukidama wrote...

Why does it fall on BioWare's shoulders to bring back the cRPG? If they want to go a different direction, they have no real reason to continue creating games in a style they don't want to use.

 What happened? after Ray calling it (again)  today an aRPG the issue is no longer if people call it as such but rather why shouldn't it be?

 Again, the thing with DA franchise is that it was supposed to be about bringing back cRPGs.

Was it really? Not questioning whether or DA:O was a throwback to those games, but was that the whole point of the franchise just to be the head of a cRPG revolution or something?

Modifié par yukidama, 03 novembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[Addai]

yukidama wrote...

Why does it fall on BioWare's shoulders to bring back the cRPG? If they want to go a different direction, they have no real reason to continue creating games in a style they don't want to use.

One reason would be that they showed with DAO that it could be done.  So they're arguing with their own success.

[tmp7704]

Brockololly wrote...

And then bluntly stating it at the 1 hour 46 minute mark:

You press a button something awesome happens. Its an action RPG. I mean, who would have imagined that?

Indeed, Dr. Ray, indeed. Who would have imagined that? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

I guess if that's all it takes then about any MMO out there is action RPG too. You press button and something happens that generally tries to be awesome.

I mean, case in point: http://www.youtube.c...zEzaPyI#t=0m40s

But wonder what does it take for a game not to be action RPG then? You press a button and nothing happens? Or something happens but it isn't awesome? 

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 novembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
Is there any a-rpgish game out there where everything is not determined by stats & rolls? WoW does this as well, is it an "old school" RPG?

Not really no.  But if I aim my rifle six feet to the left of the target in Deus Ex, Mass Effect 2, or Fallout 3 I am not hitting the target.  Twitch changes things.

Lyssistr wrote...
The point of mentioning Diablo is that turning DAO into aRPG is alienating the initial purpose of this franchise as much as if Diablo were announced to be turn based.

The initial purpose according to whom?  If you had said, "what drew me to the series in the first place" then I'd have no grounds for disagreeing with you, and neither would Bioware.

 Well it was advertised as the spiritual successor to BG/BGII, return to roots etc. I take it you mean tat extrapolating this for the whole franchise is an assumption I made. Fair enough, however how often does the nature of a successful franchise change when the developer stays the same? To be honest the only case I have on the top of my head is Quest for Glory 4 -> Quest for Glory 5 (same with KQ), Longest Journey -> Dreamfall, but again, some pretty new stuff was happening at the tech-side of games at that time and on top of that the sequel that made changes didn't come out like a year from the previous game.

[upsettingshorts]

Lyssistr wrote...

 Well it was advertised as the spiritual successor to BG/BGII, return to roots etc. I take it you mean tat extrapolating this for the whole franchise is an assumption I made. Fair enough, however how often does the nature of a successful franchise change when the developer stays the same?

It would also be fair to argue that Bioware's conception of what makes a spiritual successor is different from yours, or mine, or anyone else's. 

Granted, that's getting a little petty.  But if that definition is different enough from theirs, running into problems with the direction of the franchise was inevitable - you just didn't know it then.  If that makes sense.

[abat223]

Who cares if it's an action RPG?



Not everybody wants a slow paced game where you read paragraph after paragraph of text between 15 minute 1v1 battles where you take turns auto attacking.



I like the improvements DA2 looks to be bringing

[mellifera]

Addai67 wrote...

yukidama wrote...

Why does it fall on BioWare's shoulders to bring back the cRPG? If they want to go a different direction, they have no real reason to continue creating games in a style they don't want to use.

One reason would be that they showed with DAO that it could be done.  So they're arguing with their own success.

It could be done and they were definitely successful in doing so, but I don't really see why that means they shouldn't change the formula if they choose to.

[Daerog]

Hey, I'll take super saiyen (however you spell it) flashy EXPLOSION combat, as long as I can keep the paragraph and 10+ minute important plot dialogues or whatever. Keep the paragraphs plz!

[Lyssistr]

yukidama wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

yukidama wrote...

Why does it fall on BioWare's shoulders to bring back the cRPG? If they want to go a different direction, they have no real reason to continue creating games in a style they don't want to use.

 What happened? after Ray calling it (again)  today an aRPG the issue is no longer if people call it as such but rather why shouldn't it be?

 Again, the thing with DA franchise is that it was supposed to be about bringing back cRPGs.

Was it really? Not questioning whether or DA:O was a throwback to those games, but was that the whole point of the franchise just to be the head of a cRPG revolution or something?

Was there a contractual agreement to do that? ofc not.

Was it quite reasonable to expect an "old-school", when the developer doesn't change, the release dates not being separated by a decade and the first game being quite a success? Yes, especially considering that franchises don't normally change parts which are successful.

Was Diablo III guaranteed to be a clickfest-game? No.
Was it reasonable to expect it, considering that clickfests is why people buy Diablo games in the first place? yes. 

Similarly it was (but apparently isn't) quite a reasonable extrapolation to expect DA2 would follow the old-school path.

[upsettingshorts]

I dispute that story = paragraphs of text.

In that it is neither boring because it's paragraphs of text -> Read you lazy people.
Or that it needs to be paragraphs of text to be a story -> Gaming is a visual medium.

So both sides of that debate, quit it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:05 .

[tmp7704]

abat223 wrote...

Not everybody wants a slow paced game where you read paragraph after paragraph of text between 15 minute 1v1 battles where you take turns auto attacking.

Perhaps a reason why no one makes games which would actually play like that.

[slimgrin]

abat223 wrote...

Who cares if it's an action RPG?

Not everybody wants a slow paced game where you read paragraph after paragraph of text between 15 minute 1v1 battles where you take turns auto attacking.

I like the improvements DA2 looks to be bringing

Those walls of text are otherwise known as story, the backbone of any Bioware game.

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

 Well it was advertised as the spiritual successor to BG/BGII, return to roots etc. I take it you mean tat extrapolating this for the whole franchise is an assumption I made. Fair enough, however how often does the nature of a successful franchise change when the developer stays the same?

It would also be fair to argue that Bioware's conception of what makes a spiritual successor is different from yours, or mine, or anyone else's. 

Granted, that's getting a little petty.  But if that definition is different enough from theirs, running into problems with the direction of the franchise was inevitable - you just didn't know it then.  If that makes sense.

According to Bio, DA:O was about a return to old-school, according to Ray, DA2 is not about old school, but rather fits best into the aRPG pigeonhole.

Even when considering *only their* views of what is old-school, DA2 shifts direction. It's not subject to my personal interpretation.