173 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?

le sigh. Why do people insist on setting up "action" vs "RPG" as if the concept of an RPG precludes the possibility of "action"?  You're not a marketing person.  Why not use words that mean something instead of rhetoric?

Modifié par soteria, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
Eh. I haven't played ME2 with a male character yet, but in ME I thought Hale did a far superior job. Meer's delivery was just too bland. I don't have a strong preference for or against VO, but IMO if you're going to do it, put some life into it.

Jennifer Hale was a certain kind of person. Her two and 1/2 Shepards each had their own character, and you lose a lot of continuity with her if you switch renegade to paragon often. Meer is much better suited to fluctuation.

[Ryzaki]

Personally I can't play ME with a female character due to the VO.



She put too much life into it and Shepard ending up sounding to damn angry when I wanted Shep to be impartial.

[jbell2825]

soteria wrote...

Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?

le sigh. Why do people insist on setting up "action" vs "RPG" as if the concept of an RPG precludes the possibility of "action"?  You're not a marketing person.  Why not use words that mean something instead of rhetoric?

Im not a marketing person?  Are you sure?

What words should I use?  Im going of the interviews I have read from people who have actually seen the game.  No where do I suggest that RPG and action games cant coexist as a single cohesive game, but rather that in games past if the focus is on the action side of things, the RPG aspects suffer.  Thats simply my opinion.

As for my statement you qouted, I simply was wondering why Bioware has not been more specific about the combat action vs RPG aspects that have some many people concerned about the game.  What is wrong with that?

My hope is that Bioware can incorporate a more fluid combat system, with more action while holding firm on the traditional aspects of RPG.  My concern comes from the trend in Bioware.  While its a very small sample size the change in ME1 to ME2 is not what I would like to see in DA2. 

[ejoslin]

soteria wrote...

My opinion on the matter: DAO's sales were very good, but unexpectedly the game performed better on the consolle than the PC. DA:O was designed to be a PC exclusive in the beginning. Then it became a PC game with a consolle port. If we talk about combat the consolle port (as many players and critics alike have stated), it was really sub-par when compared to the PC version.

According to this article video game piracy is at least partially to blame for that. The argument is that despite the fact that gaming PCs are (probably) at least as common as consoles, many games sell better on the console. The author argues that the difference comes from PC games being by nature much easier to pirate.

The main problem is, both arguments, at least from my understanding, is that digital downloads are not being included in the sales figures -- only retail sales.  But so many PC users use Steam and D2D.  If you're not including those sales in your figures, then, well, of course it will look like consoles outsell pc versions and you can toss on whatever theory you think will support what you're trying to prove.

We're just not getting an accurate figure of PC sales if you only count how many copies are being sent to stores.

Edit: Of course, if there are numbers that are not being released that do include the digital download sales, then I'm completely off base.  But ALL the things I see thrown about here do not include them.  Which I suppose may not mean much...

Modifié par ejoslin, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:47 .

[maxernst]

soteria wrote...

Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?

le sigh. Why do people insist on setting up "action" vs "RPG" as if the concept of an RPG precludes the possibility of "action"?  You're not a marketing person.  Why not use words that mean something instead of rhetoric?

I agree with this, but it's running back into definition issues.  I don't view the combat system as having anything to do with whether something's an RPG or not.  I don't even see combat as an essential part of an RPG.  What many computer gamers view as RPG elements, I view as strategy game elements that happen to be commonly used in RPG's.

[Nighteye2]

ejoslin wrote...

soteria wrote...

My opinion on the matter: DAO's sales were very good, but unexpectedly the game performed better on the consolle than the PC. DA:O was designed to be a PC exclusive in the beginning. Then it became a PC game with a consolle port. If we talk about combat the consolle port (as many players and critics alike have stated), it was really sub-par when compared to the PC version.

According to this article video game piracy is at least partially to blame for that. The argument is that despite the fact that gaming PCs are (probably) at least as common as consoles, many games sell better on the console. The author argues that the difference comes from PC games being by nature much easier to pirate.

The main problem is, both arguments, at least from my understanding, is that digital downloads are not being included in the sales figures -- only retail sales.  But so many PC users use Steam and D2D.  If you're not including those sales in your figures, then, well, of course it will look like consoles outsell pc versions and you can toss on whatever theory you think will support what you're trying to prove.

We're just not getting an accurate figure of PC sales if you only count how many copies are being sent to stores.

Edit: Of course, if there are numbers that are not being released that do include the digital download sales, then I'm completely off base.  But ALL the things I see thrown about here do not include them.  Which I suppose may not mean much...

Well, there are some numbers to be found including those sales, albeit not very recent. 2 years ago, the PC gaming market was still growing - and probably still is, judging by the trend.

[FedericoV]

ejoslin wrote...

The main problem is, both arguments, at least from my understanding, is that digital downloads are not being included in the sales figures -- only retail sales.  But so many PC users use Steam and D2D.  If you're not including those sales in your figures, then, well, of course it will look like consoles outsell pc versions and you can toss on whatever theory you think will support what you're trying to prove.

We're just not getting an accurate figure of PC sales if you only count how many copies are being sent to stores.

Edit: Of course, if there are numbers that are not being released that do include the digital download sales, then I'm completely off base.  But ALL the things I see thrown about here do not include them.  Which I suppose may not mean much...

Yes, I'm aware of the problem. But I imagine that Bioware have the complete data and considering the direction they are taking, I imagine that consolle's sales have outnumbered PC sales nonetheless (even digital downloads). I don't know the reason. Piracy on the PC (wich is a serious problem) is only one part of the explanation (since it affects consolle sales too). I think that another reason is that a lot of BG fans like me are not playing games anymore unfortunately.

[AlanC9]

FedericoV wrote...
I think that another reason is that a lot of BG fans like me are not playing games anymore unfortunately.

Or aren't playing games on PC, anyway.

[ejoslin]

FedericoV wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

The main problem is, both arguments, at least from my understanding, is that digital downloads are not being included in the sales figures -- only retail sales.  But so many PC users use Steam and D2D.  If you're not including those sales in your figures, then, well, of course it will look like consoles outsell pc versions and you can toss on whatever theory you think will support what you're trying to prove.

We're just not getting an accurate figure of PC sales if you only count how many copies are being sent to stores.

Edit: Of course, if there are numbers that are not being released that do include the digital download sales, then I'm completely off base.  But ALL the things I see thrown about here do not include them.  Which I suppose may not mean much...

Yes, I'm aware of the problem. But I imagine that Bioware have the complete data and considering the direction they are taking, I imagine that consolle's sales have outnumbered PC sales nonetheless (even digital downloads). I don't know the reason. Piracy on the PC (wich is a serious problem) is only one part of the explanation (since it affects consolle sales too). I think that another reason is that a lot of BG fans like me are not playing games anymore unfortunately.

I'm not sure.  I think a lot of the changes may have to do more with having a different lead designer.  It seems the direction was changed quite a bit before significant sales figures would show.

[JrayM16]

soteria wrote...

Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?

le sigh. Why do people insist on setting up "action" vs "RPG" as if the concept of an RPG precludes the possibility of "action"?  You're not a marketing person.  Why not use words that mean something instead of rhetoric?

This.  I agree completely with the bolded section.

Candidate for post of the day.

[Dsentinel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, it's almost like the folks posing that argument are worried that Bioware is hiding the game from them (specifically) because they changed all the things they are worried have been changed. It strikes me as something of an arrogant presumption, because it implies that Bioware is worried about them more than it is proud of their own game.

So such fretting over the marketing (or lack thereof) doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Debating over the relative merits of confirmed features is entirely different, of course.

You should see The Old Republic forums, and they don't even have a previous game to base any of their arguments on. DA forums are a bit more mild than the TOR forums. Everyone has this idea that if the game isn't exactly what they want it to be, then it will fail. You'd think every gamer in the world is some sort of accomplished game designer based on their comments throughout forums.  

[jbell2825]

JrayM16 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?

le sigh. Why do people insist on setting up "action" vs "RPG" as if the concept of an RPG precludes the possibility of "action"?  You're not a marketing person.  Why not use words that mean something instead of rhetoric?

This.  I agree completely with the bolded section.

Candidate for post of the day.

Let me ask this, what games do you consider to be a balance of action and RPG?  I admit my gaming library is limited, but the examples I do know of always seem to sacrifice the RPG element of games in order to focus on the action side.

They dont have to exclude each other, but so far they do seem to be on opposite ends of a balance scale.  To get one you have to remove the other.

[JrayM16]

jbell2825 wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?

le sigh. Why do people insist on setting up "action" vs "RPG" as if the concept of an RPG precludes the possibility of "action"?  You're not a marketing person.  Why not use words that mean something instead of rhetoric?

This.  I agree completely with the bolded section.

Candidate for post of the day.

Let me ask this, what games do you consider to be a balance of action and RPG?  I admit my gaming library is limited, but the examples I do know of always seem to sacrifice the RPG element of games in order to focus on the action side.

They dont have to exclude each other, but so far they do seem to be on opposite ends of a balance scale.  To get one you have to remove the other.

I don't see what you mean.  Well, kinda.  You seem to be under the impression that RPG elements must be sacrificed to provide action elements.  In my book, RPGs are primarily defined by stats and roles to put it simply.  While I concede that there are very few examples of games that merge both action and RPG in perfect harmony, one does not actively negate the other. 

It is quite possible to have an action-heavy game like Call of Duty, and put stats as complex as DA:O's into it without destroying the game.  It would be a different game, but it would still be an action game and an RPG.

Deus Ex is a good example I think.  It's very much an action game, many mission objectives revolve around shooting and espionage and the like.  All completely player controlled, no underlying system.  There are however, stats which essentially determine the effectiveness of every single thing you do in that game. 

It gives the ability to choose how you're going to approach a misssion, whether by stealth or fighting or something else.  It also gives a lot of player choice in the role, including the ability to make choices through gameplay, something very few RPG makers have gotten right.  Deus Ex is clearly and RPG.  It is also clearly an action game.

You may be taking into account certain qualifiers of RPGs that I am not(I'm only really counting stats and roles) but action does not interfere with either of my criteria. 

[FedericoV]

jbell2825 wrote...

Let me ask this, what games do you consider to be a balance of action and RPG?  I admit my gaming library is limited, but the examples I do know of always seem to sacrifice the RPG element of games in order to focus on the action side.

They dont have to exclude each other, but so far they do seem to be on opposite ends of a balance scale.  To get one you have to remove the other.

Action and RPG are not in contrast under any point of view. Ever played Vampire Bloodlines? It's one of the best and most hardcore RPG ever (well, at least untill there was money to develop it ) and it uses Valve's Source Engine that was developed for a shooter like Half Life 2. Action is not in contrast with RPG... at most it's in contrast with the classical concept of strategy and tactics (even here, not so sure since you have to use good tactics even in most action games). For me the best example of perfect balance between action and tactics remains the BG series.

Modifié par FedericoV, 05 novembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[FedericoV]

ejoslin wrote...

I'm not sure.  I think a lot of the changes may have to do more with having a different lead designer.  It seems the direction was changed quite a bit before significant sales figures would show.

Never thought at it from that point of view. As far as we know, the development of DA2 begun 6 months before Origins was even published, so maybe you're right. Still, I think that the feedback form the consolle fans/journalist has influenced the design of DA2 more than its PC counterpart (wich is not bad in itself, since the consolle version required more work and the differences between the two versions were not fair by any mean).

[ejoslin]

FedericoV wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I'm not sure.  I think a lot of the changes may have to do more with having a different lead designer.  It seems the direction was changed quite a bit before significant sales figures would show.

Never thought at it from that point of view. As far as we know, the development of DA2 begun 6 months before Origins was even published, so maybe you're right. Still, I think that the feedback form the consolle fans/journalist has influenced the design of DA2 more than its PC counterpart (wich is not bad in itself, since the consolle version required more work and the differences between the two versions were not fair by any mean).

DA:O has massive bugs, yet all the reviews were saying, "It has massive bugs, but it is THAT good that you should go get it anyway, NOW!"  

We do know that DA:O had a different lead designer.  Of course there are going to be changes because of that alone.  And I think they expected ME2 to appeal to a larger audience than DAO did.  It probably is a surprise just how wide an audience DAO ended up appealing to.  They don't want to lose the original target audience, but at the same time, of course they want to expand it.

I get that the console version needed work.  But the changes are beyond just a few interface tweaks.  

Ah well.  It is what it is.  What I liked most about DAO, aside from the fantastic story, really, was how the world adjusted to female wardens.  I have faith in the writers, even if I don't like the idea of the changes (which IMO, were not broken).

[jbell2825]

I am not saying that one has to exclude the other, but rather that in the games that I have played (I admitted that I have not played them all) games have either played towards action or rpg elements in favor of the other.



If I caused confusion im sorry. The original thing I was asking is why Bioware was not more forth coming in regards to the action elements vs the RPG elements because it has been suggested by certain folks that there has been a shift in focus. It was never suggested that the action elements are on top of the already established RPG elements of DA:O. The current reviews/video suggests that action is the focus, and we are lead to believe that the traditional RPG elements of DA have been reduced.

[AlanC9]

jbell2825 wrote...
The current reviews/video suggests that action is the focus, and we are lead to believe that the traditional RPG elements of DA have been reduced.

Who's "we" here?

More seriously, those two things aren't necessarily related. Removing "traditional RPG elements" doesn't mean you're making an action game, it just means you're making a game that's less of a traditional RPG. Depending on how you feel about those traditions you can feel that throwing out the traditions will not just make a better game, but a better RPG.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 novembre 2010 - 09:32 .

[Rattleface]

AlanC9 wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...
The current reviews/video suggests that action is the focus, and we are lead to believe that the traditional RPG elements of DA have been reduced.

Who's "we" here?

Me and you

[jbell2825]

AlanC9 wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...
The current reviews/video suggests that action is the focus, and we are lead to believe that the traditional RPG elements of DA have been reduced.

Who's "we" here?

More seriously, those two things aren't necessarily related. Removing "traditional RPG elements" doesn't mean you're making an action game, it just means you're making a game that's less of a traditional RPG. Depending on how you feel about those traditions you can feel that throwing out the traditions will not just make a better game, but a better RPG.

The forum is full of people upset with the ways things appear to be headed.  I thought that was obvious by now.  As for your main point, I have said several times now that I know that both forms can coexist together, I have never once denied that.  I have said that in my gaming experience, I have not seen the two blended well together.  Games tend to focus on one aspect or the other.

Also, I am not saying one is bad or good vs the other, its a mater of preference.  What I am asking, is why Bioware has been tight lipped on this subject.  DA:O was billed as a throw back to a more traditional RPG, can we agree on this?  Also the game did quit well, agree?  Why then does Bioware appear to be changing from a successful RPG game to one that appears to be more focused on the action?

I understand that one mans trash is another mans art so just because I dont like a particular aspect of a game makes it wrong.  All I was asking is why Bioware is being tight lipped in regards to the RPG aspects of DA2.

[spacehamsterZH]

jbell2825 wrote...

for go its RPG roots for a more twitch based, xbox/ps3 type game

Yes, because it's not possible for RPGs to exist on consoles.

OOOHARRGHAARRGHNNGNHHRRARRRRRRGHHAGH.

I swear, one of these days...

[ErichHartmann]

jbell2825 wrote...

The forum is full of people upset with the ways things appear to be headed. 

Vocal minorities on a forum don't represent a majority and certainly not players who don't even register accounts or post.  

[jbell2825]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...

for go its RPG roots for a more twitch based, xbox/ps3 type game

Yes, because it's not possible for RPGs to exist on consoles.

OOOHARRGHAARRGHNNGNHHRRARRRRRRGHHAGH.

I swear, one of these days...

Is that not why they are making some of the changes?  To appeal to the xbox/ps3 players?  I am fully aware that RPG exist on the consoles, I have morrow wind and Oblivion for the xbox.

Lets be honest when most people think of an RPG its a computer game first.  You just have more control/options on a pc than you do on the xbox which lends its self to a more traditional RPG game.  Otherwise you generally end up with action first, stat second kind of game on consoles.  Thats not a bad or good thing, its just the way games work on different platforms.

Whats wrong with asking why Bioware made the change in direction?

[jbell2825]

ErichHartmann wrote...

jbell2825 wrote...

The forum is full of people upset with the ways things appear to be headed. 

Vocal minorities on a forum don't represent a majority and certainly not players who don't even register accounts or post.  

I havent taken a poll, what are the percentages?  I never claimed it was a majority, or a minority.  And besides the bioware forum is hardly the best place to get a true representation of anything about DA.

Honestly though, I am curious as to the poll numbers and where the poll is located.  The types of questions asked can have a surprising large impact on the outcomes of any poll.  You cant always trust the stats, people can make them say anything