539 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...
But what about, swashbucklers, fencers & duelists? None of these use assassin/thief abilities & you cannot replicate them with a warrior build, you have to go rogue, but rogues won't allow the swashbuckler to use a buckler shield.

Didn't claim that Dragon Age's system supports every rogue archetype.  Only that nina/assassin/thief has very much been a staple of rogue gameplay for a long time.

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Aermas wrote...
But what about, swashbucklers, fencers & duelists? None of these use assassin/thief abilities & you cannot replicate them with a warrior build, you have to go rogue, but rogues won't allow the swashbuckler to use a buckler shield.

Didn't claim that Dragon Age's system supports every rogue archetype.  Only that nina/assassin/thief has very much been a staple of rogue gameplay for a long time.

I'm not refuting that, I just wish I could play an upstanding dex fighter.

[FedericoV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

C'mon guys, if you see the rogue leap and sprint like a ninja, would you call it a classical RPG?

Yes? Since when do animations dictate what type of game it is? If it's on a cooldown and can't repeatably be used over and over, it isn't very actiony. Just like how Flicker didn't turn Awakening into an ARPG.

When animations are integral part of the combat system and not pure eye filler moments? In general, it's a question of pace: for me a game that play as quick as DA2 is an aRPG. Having said that  even Diablo II has stats, cooldowns and so on. Mind, for me the distinction is pretty simple.

classical CRPG: Turn Based, like the Golden Box.
Action CRPG: Real Time, like Diablo.

Real Time with Pause falls somewhere in between with various degree and that causes all the ambiguity and the discussions imho. BG 2 was close to classical CRPG, using a turn based system under the hood, while DA:O was more actiony and DA2 is even more on the action side.

Having said that: do you feel less intelligent if someone call your game an action RPG? Is not that a RPG means less tactics or less strategy. Diablo II was very tactical and strategical. May I say even more than DA:O? People have problem with the aRPG definitions because in the '90 it meant: no story, just hack and slash. Well, things have changed and it's not true anymore. A good aRPG can have a good story/setting and it's not meant to be only a Dungeoun Crawl anymore.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 novembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[FDrage]

The closest thing, for me that is, to an action RPG that Bioware ever did (in a fantasy setting) was Jade Empire ... really liked the setting and the story. But due to the combat I only played it twice, well actually (1 + 0.5 +0.5 times). and I got stuck twice at the same spot for the closed fist part. z



So I would hope that the combat (and some of the gameplay systems) for the DA franchise don't slowly go towards that type of "Action". Not really a great fan of "Actiony" Fantasy RPG styles like Elder Scrolls or Gothic (I dislike boars) as they rely too much on melee (and magic) and the bow/xbow component usually ends up being "useless" (for me that is) ..



Interestingly it worked better for something like a SCiFi thing ala Mass Effect .. so combat wise meeting in between ME1 and ME2 ... would be nice ..

[FDrage]

<baah ,.. double post ... too early in the morning>

Modifié par FDrage, 03 novembre 2010 - 09:04 .

[GodWood]

abat223 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
I hate when games prop me up as this UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS character.

You can play the sims and just do nothing..

I hate the sims.

abat223 wrote...
the point of most games is to achieve great things and be an UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS. If you weren't an UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS, you'd just get killed during the fall of Lothering and that would be the end of the story.

One can still be a protaganist without having to be a UAMBA.
I want my character to not be the strongest thing in the world, to not be someone who women throw themselves at and for them not to be told constantly how UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS they are (the latter DA:O was guilty of quite a bit, eg) Uldred's reaction to the mage Warden, HN being told how he's more liked by the people then his brother, same with DN. Although at least the ego stroking wasn't as bad as Mass Effect)
I want to be able to roleplay someone who can be weak, cowardly and believable.
Not a Mary Sue.

Modifié par GodWood, 03 novembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[upsettingshorts]

Well, in the case of Mass Effect, if you weren't "UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS" you wouldn't be a SPECTRE in the first place.

In fact, the very first lines uttered in ME1 are by an elite special forces operative, a flag officer, and a high-ranking politician debating if you are "UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS" enough for the job.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 09:49 .

[Tiax Rules All]

Playing a "weak and cowerdly" hero doesn't sound like fun. A badass that starts inexperienced, sure. But what you describe you cant really want. This isn't Dragon Age 2: A Peasants Tale

[ashwind]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Playing a "weak and cowerdly" hero doesn't sound like fun. A badass that starts inexperienced, sure. But what you describe you cant really want. This isn't Dragon Age 2: A Peasants Tale

:O:O such a thing exists!? Isnt that an oxymoron.

[GodWood]

Tiax Rules All wrote...
Playing a "weak and cowerdly" hero doesn't sound like fun. A badass that starts inexperienced, sure. But what you describe you cant really want. This isn't Dragon Age 2: A Peasants Tale

I never said a weak and cowardly hero, I said a character who can be weak and cowardly, meaning yes the character is capable but there are certain moments when they can show fear or take the more 'cowardly' option.
DA:O allowed this, an example being the Haven quest; my Warden instead of choosing to wipe out a group of cultists and a massive high dragon simply chose to taint the Ashes to avoid any quaral with them and only have to kill Leliana instead.

[Funker Shepard]

Chris Priestly wrote...

To be honest, I never played Deus Ex.

This must be remedied!

[Tiax Rules All]

I'm sure DA2 will have an oportunity for you GodWood to be weak and cowardly and stab your freinds in the back.

[GodWood]

I can only hope

[Khayness]

Sadly my Action-RPG definition is different than the industry's, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

By my standards, action RPG combat is testing your skills and gameplay mechanic knowledge (Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1 for example). Hack&Slash with conversations is not. You can have a maxed out character, but if you fail to use it to your advantage, or if you are the 1337est hax0r shooter kid in the block, but you don't know what the hell is a skill tree, you are dead meat.

Modifié par Khayness, 03 novembre 2010 - 11:01 .

[Zhijn]

Im to confused by that interview.

Iv always seen action-rpg to be that of jrpg, where you get alot of fancy combo chaining combat and rather dull and short overall rpg experience. Vice versa with wrpg. So i dont know what to make of this, i gues my definition of an "action rpg" is very different aswell from what Ray or Bioware belive is.

Or maybe its just marketing for anyone who might think it sounds cool when they hear/see "ACTION-RPG!".

Goddamnit, i want more & better info on DA2.... Now!.

Modifié par Zhijn, 03 novembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
The only 2 sequels BioWare has made were Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn and Mass Effect 2. They approached the sequels in almost polar opposite ways though- with BG2, they made a game that built off of the foundation laid in BG1 and added content, made a bigger world, greatly enhanced character interaction, introduced romances and banter- most of the staples you associate with a BioWare RPG come from BG2. Did they change things? Sure, but it was all still very much Baldur's Gate, down to playing as the Bhaalspawn again.

That's such a biased view, though. Basically, you look to BG2 as a game you loved, so you see the parts they added from BG1 to BG2 as great and what they removed as bad.

But ask someone like Sylvius the Mad, and BG2 was a betrayal of BG. Brilliant features were removed: the story was made more linear; the interesting and exciting traveling was removed; the ability to roleplay was reduced.

To someone like that BG the best game that Bioware produced, and it was just downhill from there.

Look at it this way: they looked at games like Icewind Dale and went in the totally opposite direction. They made their game more like Planescape Torment than the "typical" RPG by taking focus away from creating your own party toward being a single character at the centre of the story.

I'm sorry, but Bioware changed a lot of things from BG to BG2. This forum (and Bioware forums) are in general overrun by people that loved these changes. But that doesn't mean that BG to BG2 wasn't a dramatic shift, because it was. ME2 was the same way - they moved away from a lot of ME features.

With ME2, they seemingly tried to streamline everything, some of which worked in making it a better shooter, but at the expense of hiding most RPG mechanics or being able to see any sort of stats.

So with DA2, I was hoping BioWare would have taken the BG2 route of a sequel- make it bigger and better and more awe inspiring than the first, while creating an identity of its own. The issue I'm having with most of the changes for DA2, like the dialogue wheel or new art style, is that instead of building off of the foundation of Origins, they're seemingly tearing a good deal of that up and laying down some stuff, like the "new" dialogue wheel, that would seemingly fit in better as a feature in ME3, not iterating off of DAO.

Here is the thing.: what you think is better is not what Bioware thinks is better. I like DA:O. I was one of 3 games I purchased this year. If I was hired as the lead designer, though, I would be changing it just about the same way Bioware is, because I think the ME2 features are outright superior. I don't buy into this "both series should be different" rationale; it's like saying you should produce a lower quality product for the sake of distinction.

Bioware at some level believes these changes are a positive. They believe they dialogue wheel is great. Whether or not other people do, I just cannot see them doing things differently from BG to BG2, where they took a game that straddled the divide between 'traditional' turn-based party RPGs and some new RPG/story-driven interaction and took it hardcore toward the story-driven angle.

You see it in the preview articles constantly citing ME as an influence on DA2 and for some thats fine, but for me, its just homogeneizing the games and eliminating some of the key aspects that made Origins stand out from other games on the market. And thats disappointing.

What other games? Name me three other games like Mass Effect produced by another studio.

[In Exile]

GodWood wrote...
I want my character to not be the strongest thing in the world, to not be someone who women throw themselves at and for them not to be told constantly how UBERAWESOMEMEGABADASS they are (the latter DA:O was guilty of quite a bit, eg) Uldred's reaction to the mage Warden, HN being told how he's more liked by the people then his brother, same with DN. Although at least the ego stroking wasn't as bad as Mass Effect)
I want to be able to roleplay someone who can be weak, cowardly and believable.
Not a Mary Sue.

Bioware doesn't really allow for that much variation in their heroes; they haven't allowed this since (really) BG2, and even then it wasn't so great.

With KoTOR you really had a hard time getting away from brilliant leadership and charisma. Same in JE. And ME/ME2, obviously. In DA:O everyone was swooning over how awesome you were.

Bioware simply produces largely charismatic, impressive and captivating leaders as the centre of their games. For whatever reason, especially without VO, people seem to want to convince themselves very hard about what isn't there in the game, but if you put aside whatever special content you try and write-in for yourself in-game, you can really see how narrow your options are in a Bioware game.

[Feio]

JPR1964 wrote...

But I'm a pretty old pc rpg player : my first rpg on PC was Wizard of the Crown : I'm a kinda hard to please rpg gamer...



JPR

If you meant Wizard's Crown, the mid-80's game from SSI, then yeah, that was my first crpg as well.

As to this whole Action RPG thing - I'm simply not a fan of action games (which I define as games that rely on reflex to play). I play them, but rarely enjoy them as much as I enjoy more strategic games.

Bioware is, of course, entitled to change its games however it likes, but I'm equally entitled to buy or not buy depending on how I view those changes. I'm withholding my personal judgement on if the game is worth purchasing because all I've seen is xbox play footage on youtube (which did look very action-orientated), and there have been quotes that PC still uses autoattacks so the system may not be all that different from the first game for PC users.

Modifié par Feio, 03 novembre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Perles75]

I'm sorry, but I really haven't understood what Bioware means for "Action RPG" (users' opinions vary, but after all it's theirs that really matters, given that they are the ones who make the game ^^) and how it is translated in practice, that is in the game planning.





By the way, I didn't listen the podcast, this is not the anticipated one where they discuss about the companions, is it?

[Icinix]

Meh. As long as I can still play Dragon Age one handed I'll be fine.



Wait. Thats not what I meant.

I meant as long as I can have a cuppa' in one hand and the other hand on the mouse to play I don't care if they call it a slash 'em up third person action role playing game (SEUTPARPG for short).

[upsettingshorts]

Perles75 wrote...

By the way, I didn't listen the podcast, this is not the anticipated one where they discuss about the companions, is it?

No.

[Charliea1234]

In Exile wrote...
Bioware doesn't really allow for that much variation in their heroes; they haven't allowed this since (really) BG2, and even then it wasn't so great.

With KoTOR you really had a hard time getting away from brilliant leadership and charisma. Same in JE. And ME/ME2, obviously. In DA:O everyone was swooning over how awesome you were.

Bioware simply produces largely charismatic, impressive and captivating leaders as the centre of their games. For whatever reason, especially without VO, people seem to want to convince themselves very hard about what isn't there in the game, but if you put aside whatever special content you try and write-in for yourself in-game, you can really see how narrow your options are in a Bioware game.

This and the post above by In Exile make some of the best sense I've read on these forums!!
What really excites me about Bioware RPG's are the storylines, the characters and the interactions between them, that's why I much prefer them over Fallout, Fable, Oblivion and the rest.  The combat is, for me a means to an end, getting experience to develop my character.  So personally, Bioware can mess around with that side of things as much as they like but so long as they keep storylines and interesting companions I'll be happy.  Oh, and they can streamline inventory too for all I care, get rid of all the leather helms and crap chainmail and have fewer but better quality items, although I fear the best items will come as weapons packs which people will need to pay for, not me though!

[Tennyochan]

Thanks for the heads up OP. *listening now*

[Leonia]

Icinix wrote...

Meh. As long as I can still play Dragon Age one handed I'll be fine.

Wait. Thats not what I meant.
I meant as long as I can have a cuppa' in one hand and the other hand on the mouse to play I don't care if they call it a slash 'em up third person action role playing game (SEUTPARPG for short).

I support this.

I don't care if that means it's called a WRPG, CRPG, Action-RPG, OMGWTFHANSHOTFIRSTRPG or what but as long as I can have a nice cup of coffee while playing it's all good.

[Aermas]

When I think of RPG I think of Kotor 1 & 2, BG, Jade Empire, & Morrowind/Oblivion. They have dialog they have basic attack forms, no combo chains & over the top flashiness, they stay relatively realistic.

JRPGs are the place for big things to fight & button mashing combos & the horrible lack of the laws of physics