539 réponses à ce sujet

[Daerog]

Lyssistr wrote...

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.

I'm not saying your wrong, as it is a personal assumption, but I just wanted to mention my own assumption. I don't see BioWare continueing a pattern for long. They had BG1 and 2, ok (haven't played them yet), but there was NWN, KotOR, JE, ME and ME2 (the changes have been expressed on these forums), and DA:O. Not to mention the games they made before all those. There are differences to all these games (except the BG ones as far as I've heard), so I didn't expect BW to make DA2 just like DA:O at all.

[Addai]

yukidama wrote...

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.

I don't see why those of us who liked what they did and want to buy more of it can't let them know that.  It's what the forum is for.

[slimgrin]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

 so I didn't expect BW to make DA2 just like DA:O at all.

Worth quoting because Bioware has demonstrated repeatedly they have a desire to innovate in their games, for better or worse. We all better get used to it.

[Lyssistr]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

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.

I'm not saying your wrong, as it is a personal assumption, but I just wanted to mention my own assumption. I don't see BioWare continueing a pattern for long. They had BG1 and 2, ok (haven't played them yet), but there was NWN, KotOR, JE, ME and ME2 (the changes have been expressed on these forums), and DA:O. Not to mention the games they made before all those. There are differences to all these games (except the BG ones as far as I've heard), so I didn't expect BW to make DA2 just like DA:O at all.

I'm referring explicitly to games *within the same* franchise/IP. Ofc in different IPs they can do whatever they want, no reason to extrapolate from one IP to another.

I didn't extrapolate from little vikings (or whatever that game was called) to diablo, but rather from diablo I/II to diablo III.

[Addai]

slimgrin wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

 so I didn't expect BW to make DA2 just like DA:O at all.

Worth quoting because Bioware has demonstrated repeatedly they have a desire to innovate in their games, for better or worse. We all better get used to it.

Innovate by becoming more like Mass Effect?  How is that innovation?

[ErichHartmann]

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I've been saying "action RPG" since San Diego Comic Con. Not new, but it definitely suits Dragon Age II.

Would you have labeled Origins as an "Action RPG"?

Yes, spent the majority of time fighting.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
Innovate by becoming more like Mass Effect?  How is that innovation?

Technically, they are attempting to do the dialogue wheel better than Mass Effect. In fact, it seems they have listened to complaints that it is difficult to predict the tone and substance of Shepard's speech based only on the paraphrase, and have responded by adding indicators of Hawke's intent.

Whether that suits your preferences or not, it shows a pretty clear attitude of wanting to improve.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:13 .

[Daerog]

Addai67 wrote...

yukidama wrote...

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.

I don't see why those of us who liked what they did and want to buy more of it can't let them know that.  It's what the forum is for.

Very true. However, you said they were argueing about their success, I would disagree and say they know of their success but only wish to try to change things because they wish to and to make it fun for themselves.

[abat223]

Walls of text are a way to deliver a story, but that's what books are for.

A story told(in a game or movie) is far more interesting than a story read. A story told by a character in a game makes you feel closer to the character, rather than a wall of text with no personality, voice or passion for the story told.

[mellifera]

Addai67 wrote...

yukidama wrote...

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.

I don't see why those of us who liked what they did and want to buy more of it can't let them know that.  It's what the forum is for.

I'm not saying you shouldn't, just saying that they aren't obligated to continue making games that way if they feel they can make something just as good just expressed differently. Whether or not it will actually be good is subjective. Sure it may be disappointing, but I personally have faith that DA2 will be a game I will like and will keep what I came here for in the first place: a great story with engaging characters.

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Innovate by becoming more like Mass Effect?  How is that innovation?

Technically, they are attempting to do the dialogue wheel better than Mass Effect. In fact, it seems they have listened to complaints that it is difficult to predict the tone and substance of Shepard's speech based only on the paraphrase, and have responded by adding indicators of Hawke's intent.

Whether that suits your preferences or not, it shows a pretty clear attitude of wanting to improve.

Just to make clear that VO'd protagonist or not, dialogue wheel or not are fine by me, I know others who object but my concerns are on combat. I view RPGs as good as their combat system and it was exactly this element I missed from BG and got into the DA franchise in the first place.

[Daerog]

Lyssistr wrote...

I'm referring explicitly to games *within the same* franchise/IP. Ofc in different IPs they can do whatever they want, no reason to extrapolate from one IP to another.

I didn't extrapolate from little vikings (or whatever that game was called) to diablo, but rather from diablo I/II to diablo III.

Right, right. I was just saying that such a pattern has yet to be seen from BioWare, except from the BG series I think, but ME2 was certainly a shocker so that blew away my expectations of the same stuff being redone.
You are right about Diablo I think.

Edit: Calling the changes "innovation" is probably not the best way to put it on these boards, or telling anyone to get used to it... Just call it changes or tweaks, as that is what it is.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:18 .

[slimgrin]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I've been saying "action RPG" since San Diego Comic Con. Not new, but it definitely suits Dragon Age II.

Would you have labeled Origins as an "Action RPG"?

Yes, spent the majority of time fighting.

How many times do I have to...ugh. An action rpg involves fast twitch combat, that means fine motor skills on the part of the player. DA:O was not an action rpg, not in the slightest.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Niiiiiiiiiice. A game with DAO depth and a combat system that doesn't make me turn off my Xbox out of boredom; sounds like an awesome game.

[Daerog]

slimgrin wrote...

How many times do I have to...ugh. An action rpg involves fast twitch combat, that means fine motor skills on the part of the player. DA:O was not an action rpg, not in the slightest.

GLORY TO THE ALMIGHTY BATTLE PAUSE!

Look ma! I can play two rpgs at once since I only need one hand for each game!

[Lyssistr]

yukidama wrote...
I'm not saying you shouldn't, just saying that they aren't obligated to continue making games that way if they feel they can make something just as good just expressed differently. Whether or not it will actually be good is subjective. Sure it may be disappointing, but I personally have faith that DA2 will be a game I will like and will keep what I came here for in the first place: a great story with engaging characters.

Gaider is the writer so story is quite likely to be cool, characters will probably be interesting as well. My problem with DA2's direction is not if it's gonna be a good game in general, I've skipped plenty of good games in general because they didn't have what I was looking for. In this franchise I look after this type of combat more than anything else tbh.

[ErichHartmann]

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I've been saying "action RPG" since San Diego Comic Con. Not new, but it definitely suits Dragon Age II.

Would you have labeled Origins as an "Action RPG"?

Yes, spent the majority of time fighting.

How many times do I have to...ugh. An action rpg involves fast twitch combat, that means fine motor skills on the part of the player. DA:O was not an action rpg, not in the slightest.

I don't follow narrow definitions of what an RPG is or isn't. 

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Dialogue wheel, responsive gameplay and voiced PC do not a Mass Effect make.



DA2 will most likely surprise by being DA:O in a shinier and less clunky package.

[mellifera]

Lyssistr wrote...

yukidama wrote...
I'm not saying you shouldn't, just saying that they aren't obligated to continue making games that way if they feel they can make something just as good just expressed differently. Whether or not it will actually be good is subjective. Sure it may be disappointing, but I personally have faith that DA2 will be a game I will like and will keep what I came here for in the first place: a great story with engaging characters.

Gaider is the writer so story is quite likely to be cool, characters will probably be interesting as well. My problem with DA2's direction is not if it's gonna be a good game in general, I've skipped plenty of good games in general because they didn't have what I was looking for. In this franchise I look after this type of combat more than anything else tbh.

Well then, if DA2 doesn't provide it I hope you find what you're looking for.

I am just saying that BioWare is under no obligation to continue what they started in the exact same way as the first. If they change up the combat a bit or storytelling style but deliver a good, solid game I won't be mad in the least. Not saying people don't have the right to be disappointed, though.

Modifié par yukidama, 03 novembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[Lyssistr]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

I'm referring explicitly to games *within the same* franchise/IP. Ofc in different IPs they can do whatever they want, no reason to extrapolate from one IP to another.

I didn't extrapolate from little vikings (or whatever that game was called) to diablo, but rather from diablo I/II to diablo III.

Right, right. I was just saying that such a pattern has yet to be seen from BioWare, except from the BG series I think, but ME2 was certainly a shocker so that blew away my expectations of the same stuff being redone.
You are right about Diablo I think.

Edit: Calling the changes "innovation" is probably not the best way to put it on these boards, or telling anyone to get used to it... Just call it changes or tweaks, as that is what it is.

 Tbh Bio hasn't focused too mach on sequels so far, so yes the sample if taken Bio-only is small. If the sample is in general the video game industry and how it functions, the extrapolation wasn't too unreasonable, especially considering that for DA2 they had been trying to play on all boards PR-wise.

 It doesn't really matter however, how reasonable/unreasonable was the extrapolation before too much was known about DA2, the result is known, DA2 is what it is and it's not old school.

 Anyhow, since this franchise has totally toasted my hopes for some old-school combat, I'll take the back seat and wait in case some pro-indie studio decides to bite the bullet.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

 so I didn't expect BW to make DA2 just like DA:O at all.

Worth quoting because Bioware has demonstrated repeatedly they have a desire to innovate in their games, for better or worse. We all better get used to it.

Innovate by becoming more like Mass Effect?  How is that innovation?

We don't know that. Damn, I wish they would release official gameplay....

I said they have a desire to innovate. I happen to disagree with some of their innovations, but looking at how different ME2 is from ME1, and now DA2 - its just what they do. Consider what Capcom does. They copy old IP's and recycle ideas relentlessly. Bioware's m.o. is different.

[Lyssistr]

yukidama wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

yukidama wrote...
I'm not saying you shouldn't, just saying that they aren't obligated to continue making games that way if they feel they can make something just as good just expressed differently. Whether or not it will actually be good is subjective. Sure it may be disappointing, but I personally have faith that DA2 will be a game I will like and will keep what I came here for in the first place: a great story with engaging characters.

Gaider is the writer so story is quite likely to be cool, characters will probably be interesting as well. My problem with DA2's direction is not if it's gonna be a good game in general, I've skipped plenty of good games in general because they didn't have what I was looking for. In this franchise I look after this type of combat more than anything else tbh.

Well then, if DA2 doesn't provide it I hope you find what you're looking for.

I am just saying that BioWare is under no obligation to continue what they started in the exact same way as the first. If they change up the combat a bit or storytelling style but deliver a good, solid game I won't be mad in the least. Not saying people don't have the right to be disappointed, though.

Obligation is carried only through contractual agreements, so no, there wasn't any.

It's rather an expectation of continuity *within the same franchise/IP*, especially when the focus point for DA:O was about returning to the roots (I was waiting for DA:O to come out for something like half a decade, just for the old-school bit).

[Daerog]

Lyssistr wrote...

 Tbh Bio hasn't focused too mach on sequels so far, so yes the sample if taken Bio-only is small. If the sample is in general the video game industry and how it functions, the extrapolation wasn't too unreasonable, especially considering that for DA2 they had been trying to play on all boards PR-wise.

Ya, but BioWare isn't like the rest of the video game industry.
What? It's not.
NO! IT"S NOT! I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

....

Ok, it is, but it still retains the BW charm.

And by charm, I mean .

[slimgrin]

ErichHartmann wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I've been saying "action RPG" since San Diego Comic Con. Not new, but it definitely suits Dragon Age II.

Would you have labeled Origins as an "Action RPG"?

Yes, spent the majority of time fighting.

How many times do I have to...ugh. An action rpg involves fast twitch combat, that means fine motor skills on the part of the player. DA:O was not an action rpg, not in the slightest.

I don't follow narrow definitions of what an RPG is or isn't. 

Sorry for my condescension. I'm only attempting to define the 'action' part of action rpg, not the rpg part, which as you have suggested, is much broader.