539 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

Aermas wrote...

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

Wait, what?

[tmp7704]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

There will be no dwarf romance in DA2 b/c Gaider thinks it will be a better product that way.

If i recall right there's going to be no dwarf romance written specifically by Mr.Gaider, but it doesn't exclude having one completely?

[Aermas]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

Wait, what?

I was thinking of the special attacks they have like in FF8's, FF12 & Legend of Dragoon's timing & button mashing

[Addai]

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.

Making a huge change that harks back to Mass Effect, but incrementally improving it (assuming that it does), doesn't sound like much of an advance.  Nor does homogenizing all your franchises to be the same game with different furniture.

[Addai]

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.

Except so far I haven't seen that, either.  I keep thinking they're going to hook me eventually but it's pretty ho hum around here.  When a dwarf with chest hair and some chick's boots are the most exciting things there are to talk about...

[Aermas]

what until tomorrow, then all hell will break loose

[Big Blue Car]

Chris Priestly wrote...

To be honest, I never played Deus Ex. I would call Fallout 3 a shooter with RPG elements.

Say what? Sorry bro but Fallout 3 was far more an RPG than Dragon Age was. Hell, just look at the conversation options. In F3 your stats opened up new dialogue options, as did particular perks, a separate persuasion skill, particular information you had, your repuation, tons of stuff. And it often led to huge differences in how the conversations ended up.

Compare that to DA:O; a single persuasion skill and occasional references to you being an elf or noble or whatever.

Both were good games but damn dude that's a sassy, incorrect opinion you're sporting there. 

[Maria Caliban]

Chris is... sassy?

[Rentrix]

Big Blue Car wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

To be honest, I never played Deus Ex. I would call Fallout 3 a shooter with RPG elements.

Say what? Sorry bro but Fallout 3 was far more an RPG than Dragon Age was. Hell, just look at the conversation options. In F3 your stats opened up new dialogue options, as did particular perks, a separate persuasion skill, particular information you had, your repuation, tons of stuff. And it often led to huge differences in how the conversations ended up.

Compare that to DA:O; a single persuasion skill and occasional references to you being an elf or noble or whatever.

Both were good games but damn dude that's a sassy, incorrect opinion you're sporting there. 

I wouldn't call Fallout III more of a rpg than Origins, not by a long shot. Fallout III was WAY more shooter than rpg. Origins was straight rpg. Damn dude that's a sassy, incorrect opinion you're sporting there.

[Leonia]

They're definiting what RPG means again! *takes a shot of espresso*

[Aermas]

Sassy?

[soteria]

I can't find the Bioware quote about DA:O being an action RPG, but the following is what I found in a google search for "dragon age origins action rpg." All of these descriptions are from previews.



Kotaku:

Combat Options: According to the BioWare guys showing me the game, Dragon Age can be played as a real-time twitch-based action-RPG a la Fable 2. And a player need plumb no deeper than that.

thekoalition, from a preview in E3:

For a medieval type setting (which has been done again and again in rpg’s) this game seems to offer much more depth than many before it. Of course it’s completely different to the likes of Elder Scrolls, because Dragon Age is more of an action rpg, but it just so happens to include a lot of interesting dialog and story pathways.

newsarama,

Penny Arcade Expo, Sept 2009:

The game itself, a third person action-RPG, appears to take a lot of its gameplay cues from Mass Effect over Knights of the Old Republic (two popular Bioware franchises), using almost entirely real-time combat with radial menus, although not in the dialog, which uses a list menu.

Also, Dragon Age is currently listed under Action RPGs on this site... http://www.gamersgat.../rpg/action-rpg

One conclusion that is easy to draw is that obviously those people got the idea that DA:O would be an action RPG from somewhere. I also found articles saying DA:O would "kinda but not really" be an action RPG, quotes that you would have to "think like a wise commander but fight like the guy on the front lines" (sound familiar?), and others vehemently denying that DA:O would be anything like an action RPG. All in all, sounds a lot like the marketing for DA2.

I think the main thing to take away is that people have different definitions of "action RPG." Some people seem to mean it has a lot of combat, others that it has real time combat, others apparently that "you push a button and something happens," and some that you control every aspect of combat (ie, blocking, stabbing, slashing, etc). Trying to draw meaning from someone's statement that a game is "actiony" or an "action-RPG" is stupid unless you already know exactly how they define that term.

[Addai]

Aermas wrote...

what until tomorrow, then all hell will break loose

Y'think?  What happens tomorrow?

[nightcobra]

Addai67 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

what until tomorrow, then all hell will break loose

Y'think?  What happens tomorrow?

podcast, and london convention

[Chris Priestly]

Sassy?

[Shepard Lives]

Big Blue Car wrote...
 Sorry bro but Fallout 3 was far more an RPG than Dragon Age was.

[addiction21]

Sassy
Possessing the attitude of someone endowed with an ungodly amount of cool.

http://www.urbandict....php?term=sassy

Modifié par addiction21, 03 novembre 2010 - 03:58 .

[errant_knight]

It's impossible to know how much of the 'all action-all the time' mantra is just marketing twaddle, and how much is true. The new animations tend to point to it not all being BS. I do wonder why the decision was made to make the marketing so divisive.

[SXOSXO]

Lyssistr wrote...

Noctis2.0 wrote...

Sooo Action RPG= bad?

 Bad in general, without any a priori considerations? No, I'm gonna love Diablo III.

 Bad for DA franchise? It's bad for rejuvenating cRPGs, going back to the roots, bad for claiming the spiritual legacy of BG, bad for royally ****ing the core gameplay of a franchise that btw had no trouble selling. It's as bad as Diablo III would be if it were announced as a turn-based game.

 Bio boss calls DA2 an aRPG (again), it sounds like it's gonna be one. Console ported aRPG, not exactly my idea of an "old school" RPG franchise but oh well, there's plenty of stuff coming out, DA2 is hardly a necessity.

/agreed

I'm absolutely sure DA2 is gonna be a great game in its own right, but I still think the decision to take away the franchise that was meant to be a throwback to cRPG's from the core fans, and turning it into something else just doesn't make sense. I'm sure in EA logic it makes total sense, but DAO sold very well despite the fact it wasn't "mainstream" enough.

But it's too late now. Bioware did what they did, and they don't even understand the failure in logic it was, or if they do, they're not willing to step on anyone's toes and say it. Those of us that crave cRPG's have lost one of the few options left to us, and from arguably the best RPG company in the biz. It's quite disheartening.

[Nerevar-as]

SXOSXO wrote...

I'm absolutely sure DA2 is gonna be a great game in its own right, but I still think the decision to take away the franchise that was meant to be a throwback to cRPG's from the core fans, and turning it into something else just doesn't make sense. I'm sure in EA logic it makes total sense, but DAO sold very well despite the fact it wasn't "mainstream" enough.

For some reason they must have thought Origins sales were good in despite of rather than because of the throwback, or that mainstreaming it will bring casual players. Don´t know. But I have my doubts it will work any better than for ME2, which seems will end about the sales number from ME1 + PS3 version. I don´t think the pure shooter fanbase overlaps that much with Shooter-RPG. Same for GoW vs RPGs. Maybe the problem isn´t the approach to action but much heavier input of the player in character and plot development.

But it's too late now. Bioware did what they did, and they don't even understand the failure in logic it was, or if they do, they're not willing to step on anyone's toes and say it. Those of us that crave cRPG's have lost one of the few options left to us, and from arguably the best RPG company in the biz. It's quite disheartening.

We still don´t know if it´s a failure. We still don´t know what they´ve actually changed. But it does seem in a few years all we´ll have for cRPG will be indies.

[Nozybidaj]

Nerevar-as wrote...

But it's too late now. Bioware did what they did, and they don't even understand the failure in logic it was, or if they do, they're not willing to step on anyone's toes and say it. Those of us that crave cRPG's have lost one of the few options left to us, and from arguably the best RPG company in the biz. It's quite disheartening.

We still don´t know if it´s a failure. We still don´t know what they´ve actually changed. But it does seem in a few years all we´ll have for cRPG will be indies.

I've been getting that feeling as well, that BW is trying to distance themselves from the RPG genre.  With ME2 and the news we have so far about DA2 that is certainly the impression I have.

We do still have Bethesda to look to though, we're not totally reliant on indie's yet.

[Dave of Canada]

soteria wrote...

I can't find the Bioware quote about DA:O being an action RPG, but the following is what I found in a google search for "dragon age origins action rpg." All of these descriptions are from previews.

Kotaku:

Combat Options: According to the BioWare guys showing me the game, Dragon Age can be played as a real-time twitch-based action-RPG a la Fable 2. And a player need plumb no deeper than that.

thekoalition, from a preview in E3:

For a medieval type setting (which has been done again and again in rpg’s) this game seems to offer much more depth than many before it. Of course it’s completely different to the likes of Elder Scrolls, because Dragon Age is more of an action rpg, but it just so happens to include a lot of interesting dialog and story pathways.

newsarama,
Penny Arcade Expo, Sept 2009:

The game itself, a third person action-RPG, appears to take a lot of its gameplay cues from Mass Effect over Knights of the Old Republic (two popular Bioware franchises), using almost entirely real-time combat with radial menus, although not in the dialog, which uses a list menu.

Also, Dragon Age is currently listed under Action RPGs on this site... http://www.gamersgat.../rpg/action-rpg
One conclusion that is easy to draw is that obviously those people got the idea that DA:O would be an action RPG from somewhere. I also found articles saying DA:O would "kinda but not really" be an action RPG, quotes that you would have to "think like a wise commander but fight like the guy on the front lines" (sound familiar?), and others vehemently denying that DA:O would be anything like an action RPG. All in all, sounds a lot like the marketing for DA2.
I think the main thing to take away is that people have different definitions of "action RPG." Some people seem to mean it has a lot of combat, others that it has real time combat, others apparently that "you push a button and something happens," and some that you control every aspect of combat (ie, blocking, stabbing, slashing, etc). Trying to draw meaning from someone's statement that a game is "actiony" or an "action-RPG" is stupid unless you already know exactly how they define that term.

Quoting this so people can answer it instead of ignoring it.

[AlanC9]

FedericoV wrote...
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.

Hmm... a binary classification system that puts most of the best and most prominent items into an ambiguous category strikes me as being a fairly useless way to classify the items.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 novembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[FedericoV]

AlanC9 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
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.

Hmm... a binary classification system that puts most of the best and most prominent items into an ambiguous category strike me as being a fairly useless way to classify the items.

Honestly, I really do not get your point. Can you explain?

If you read that topic you will see that there is not any consesus over what classical or action RPG means. At least I try to use an hystoric and "objective" meter wich is real time vs. turn based: the classical RPGs (until the middle of the '90) were mostly turn based. For me action or classical rpg labels only speaks about the combat. And it's pretty obvious that a real time game is more action oriented than a turn based one.

Having said that, I do not care a lot about labels if the game is fun and I think that they do not matter a lot. And I also think that it's useless to judge a game in an analytical way, separating a feature from the other and not considering the game as a whole.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 novembre 2010 - 07:17 .

[AlanC9]

I'm not saying that your definition isn't objective or that it's incoherent. I just don't see how it's of any use, even to you.

Edit: the only fundamental differences between BG2 actions and DAO actions is that regardless of casting time for a BG2 spell, you can't start another action until the next round, and that effect on enemies work in seconds rather than rounds.. This mans that actions become desynchronized. Other than that, they work the same.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 novembre 2010 - 07:41 .