1080 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

NPCs.

Then why do we have direct control over them in combat even when the PC is unable to give orders or isn't present?

Because the game makers utilize the players to overcome the limits of current software technology. In Fallout NV and ME 2, you don't have to take control of the characters, but in DA you do because BioWare couldn't develop robust enough AI to simulate a game master or another player while maintaining the level of tactical depth they desire.

It's the same reason why you're limited when it comes to quests, actions, and dialogue: the technology isn't advanced enough to simulate a complete game master.

Player control of companions is a big, blood encrusted band-aid over the single biggest weakness of computer role-playing games, but it's one that, bizarrely, some people have grown very fond of.

Please tell me you didn't just call party based CRPG's a band aid.  Please.

[upsettingshorts]

KLUME777 wrote...
Your missing locked as human, set character like shepherd,

That's not unique to Mass Effect.  You could have easily have said KOTOR.  

KLUME777 wrote...
revamped gameplay.

Meaningless out of context, which is what people asking for examples are demanding.  "Revamped gameplay" could mean they borrowed from Baldur's Gate for all that statement implies is that it's different than DA:O.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Please tell me you didn't just call party based CRPG's a band aid.  Please.

I've made similar arguments.  You know the "CRPGs are choose your own adventure books and only mimic the table top experience that they are incapable of accurately simulating" one.  I don't think we need to go into it again, but it's certainly not a view limited to a few people.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:29 .

[Maconbar]

Sir JK wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yay! Sylvius!

Also Companions are un-customized PC's, kind of like no RPG characters

Personally I like companions that seem more like NPCs. I like them to be more independent from a role-playing perspective. For example I think Wynne would be better in her implementation if she could not be a blood mage. Her character was written in a manner that made it pretty clear that she disapproved of blood magic yet the game mechanics allowed her to become a blood mage. I think that lessens her character.

Alternatively it lessens the impact of the choice itself.

True.

[Maconbar]

Aermas wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yay! Sylvius!

Also Companions are un-customized PC's, kind of like no RPG characters

Personally I like companions that seem more like NPCs. I like them to be more independent from a role-playing perspective. For example I think Wynne would be better in her implementation if she could not be a blood mage. Her character was written in a manner that made it pretty clear that she disapproved of blood magic yet the game mechanics allowed her to become a blood mage. I think that lessens her character.

Then you were not properly role-playing Wynne

Please elaborate.

[Sir JK]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Please tell me you didn't just call party based CRPG's a band aid.  Please.

She didn't, she referred to complete party control as one since the technology cannot intelligently control these characters for you. Unlike tabletop roleplaying games where they would be controlled by other players or the DM and thus out of your control.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
Your missing locked as human, set character like shepherd,

That's not unique to Mass Effect.  You could have easily have said KOTOR.  

KLUME777 wrote...
revamped gameplay.

Meaningless out of context, which is what people asking for examples are demanding.  "Revamped gameplay" could mean they borrowed from Baldur's Gate for all that statement implies is that it's different than DA:O.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Please tell me you didn't just call party based CRPG's a band aid.  Please.

I've made similar arguments.  You know the "CRPGs are choose your own adventure books and only mimic the table top experience that they are incapable of accurately simulating" one.  I don't think we need to go into it again, but it's certainly not a view limited to a few people.

The whole point of party based CRPG's is to represent that "tabletop" experience in a single player setting. Hense a full party to control. Plus AI has never been Bioware's strong point, I can't count how many times in ME/ME2  I had to hand hold a party member that wanted to run head long into laser fire. Dumb as a brick fits the companion AI in ME to a T.

[addiction21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
Your missing locked as human, set character like shepherd,

That's not unique to Mass Effect.  You could have easily have said KOTOR.  

I am thinking its not limited to what is unique about ME2 just that ME2 has it so if DA2 has it then DA2 is being mass effectified or what ever the new buzz word is.

But i am now part of derailing I think and am just going to walk away. Sorry everyone.

Modifié par addiction21, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Aermas]

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yay! Sylvius!

Also Companions are un-customized PC's, kind of like no RPG characters

Personally I like companions that seem more like NPCs. I like them to be more independent from a role-playing perspective. For example I think Wynne would be better in her implementation if she could not be a blood mage. Her character was written in a manner that made it pretty clear that she disapproved of blood magic yet the game mechanics allowed her to become a blood mage. I think that lessens her character.

Then you were not properly role-playing Wynne

Please elaborate.

Origins is a Party based game, you have direct control over a single characters choices, & limited control of your party, knowing that Wynne abhors Blood Magic you fail to role-play this properly if you give her blood magic. Bioware does not let you create every single member of your party because that is ridiculous. Instead you are expected to role=play what they give you instead of roll-play (read as making statistical choices over personality based choices)

[Maria Caliban]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...


Please tell me you didn't just call party based CRPG's a band aid.  Please.

It's fine if you like it! The genre is enriched by the tactical wargame elements of party-based combat just like it's enriched by the shooter elements in Fallout 3. It's unlikely to disappear because the alternative isn't something developers can create.

But I do wish people would stop mistaking hybridized gameplay elements for actual role-playing.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:44 .

[Saibh]

Aermas wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yay! Sylvius!

Also Companions are un-customized PC's, kind of like no RPG characters

Personally I like companions that seem more like NPCs. I like them to be more independent from a role-playing perspective. For example I think Wynne would be better in her implementation if she could not be a blood mage. Her character was written in a manner that made it pretty clear that she disapproved of blood magic yet the game mechanics allowed her to become a blood mage. I think that lessens her character.

Then you were not properly role-playing Wynne

Please elaborate.

Origins is a Party based game, you have direct control over a single characters choices, & limited control of your party, knowing that Wynne abhors Blood Magic you fail to role-play this properly if you give her blood magic. Bioware does not let you create every single member of your party because that is ridiculous. Instead you are expected to role=play what they give you instead of roll-play (read as making statistical choices over personality based choices)

I'm sorry, that didn't make a lot of sense to me. The gist I gathered is that game mechanics should be considered seperate from character personalities. you shouldn't have made her a blood mage then.

I agree that is true, most of the time. But, in this situation, you made her a blood mage. Plain and simple. She is never, ever, okay with blood magic. For increased roleplay you shouldn't have been able to. For increased gameplay it doesn't matter.

Modifié par Saibh, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The whole point of party based CRPG's is to represent that "tabletop" experience in a single player setting.

My argument leads to this conclusion though: 

The whole point of party based CRPGs was to represent the "tabletop" experience in a single player setting.  But it's bad at it.  And the fact that specific playstyle is dieing - dead even, if DA:2 was supposedly its last hope - is not a coincidence as developers have now learned to play to the strength of the medium and moved beyond the initial inspiration of the genre.

I don't expect reading that is any more comfortable for you than seeing the flight sim genre I loved die out was for me.  Nor do I expect you to accept my argument or conclusion, but I'm confident in it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:37 .

[Maconbar]

Aermas wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Yay! Sylvius!

Also Companions are un-customized PC's, kind of like no RPG characters

Personally I like companions that seem more like NPCs. I like them to be more independent from a role-playing perspective. For example I think Wynne would be better in her implementation if she could not be a blood mage. Her character was written in a manner that made it pretty clear that she disapproved of blood magic yet the game mechanics allowed her to become a blood mage. I think that lessens her character.

Then you were not properly role-playing Wynne

Please elaborate.

Origins is a Party based game, you have direct control over a single characters choices, & limited control of your party, knowing that Wynne abhors Blood Magic you fail to role-play this properly if you give her blood magic. Bioware does not let you create every single member of your party because that is ridiculous. Instead you are expected to role=play what they give you instead of roll-play (read as making statistical choices over personality based choices)

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I didn't ever make her blood mage. I am saying that I think that BW made a mistake when they allowed Wynne to become a blood mage without comment or penalty.

[Pritos]

Morrigans God son wrote...

Pritos wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Am I the only one who doesn't see THAT much of resemblance between what has been revealed of DA2 up to now and ME2?

what?

ok, Abilites with Upgrades....check

non customizable companion outfits .....Check

Companions with out of class/unique trees.....check

Hawke/Shepard being the only fully customizable character.....check

need I go on? not that it's all bad but......it is noticeable

Seriously, is that all? Plase go on because this is almost nothing. Games are made to be played for much more than just that. If you let factors like those be decisive when forming an opinion about a game, you should go watch a movie.

How the heck is that nothing? It's completely different from DAO and more like ME. Seriously this game should be a sequel to ME and not DA.

Wait, so you are saying that for you DA2 looks more like ME2 than like DAO?

And yes, it is almost nothing. People don't play a RPG game because they can fully customize their characters, nor because they can change the clothes of their companions. They play it for the amount of imersion they provide for the player in many aspects. In some games, yes, the customization is a very imersive aspect, though it wasn't the case of DAO. Customization in DAO sucked.
There were many armors/clothes that looked the same and weren't that appealing. The characters's body model were awful.
Bioware is just abandoning something that didn't work quite well for something that has more potential in going the right way.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The whole point of party based CRPG's is to represent that "tabletop" experience in a single player setting.

My argument leads to this conclusion though: 

The whole point of party based CRPGs was to represent the "tabletop" experience in a single player setting.  But it's bad at it.  And the fact that specific playstyle is dieing - dead even, if DA:2 was supposedly its last hope - is not a coincidence as developers have now learned to play to the strength of the medium and moved beyond the initial inspiration of the genre.

I don't expect reading that is any more comfortable for you than seeing the flight sim genre I loved die out was for me.  Nor do I expect you to accept my argument or conclusion, but I'm confident in it.

It's dying because lots of choice, options and tactics, are apparently unappealing to the new target audience. Hense why spiritial sucessor to Baldur's Gate lasted a whole one title.

I wouldn't call a game that sold 3 million copies in what is generally known as niche genre dying btw.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

The old target audience was people who were satisfied with a bad adaptation of tabletop gameplay.

The new target audience is people who are not.

Indeed, the sales figures were strong.  But I doubt DA:2 would be making any of these changes if they thought they would hurt sales.  I could very well be wrong though, that's why I said I was confident, not omniscient.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:42 .

[Morrigans God son]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The old target audience was people who were satisfied with a bad adaptation of tabletop gameplay.

The new target audience is people who are not.

Wrong again!

[upsettingshorts]

Morrigans God son wrote...

Wrong again!

How persuasive.<_<

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The old target audience was people who were satisfied with a bad adaptation of tabletop gameplay.

The new target audience is people who are not.

Indeed, the sales figures were strong.  But I doubt DA:2 would be making any of these changes if they thought they would hurt sales.  I could very well be wrong though, that's why I said I was confident, not omniscient.

Thats a pretty strong statement to claim as fact AngryPants. Considering the new target audience tends to get distracted by shiny things.

I highly doubt the changes they made will gain many sales either, which is exactly part of the reason I'm getting that "we mass effected it for the sake of mass effecting it" vibe.

[ENolan]

[Watching the debate while occasionally looking back to check if his question was answered.]



And here I thought I finally was a part of the thread....

[upsettingshorts]

I'd say it's a pretty strong statement of opinion. Unless I explicitly describe something as objective fact, I'm speaking of my opinion. I did just that earlier in the thread on another off-topic sidetrack, in fact.

We'll see on sales. Or maybe we won't. It's not like the specific figures for DA:O and ME2 are open to the public.

I don't know what the "CoS" stands for either.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:49 .

[Maria Caliban]

Before anyone accuses me of simply seeing cRPGs as cheap imitations of PnP RPGs, I'd like to say that's not the case. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses.

I have literally spent a real time hour sitting through 6 minutes of in-game combat in a PnP RPG. That's a defect if every there was one, and it's one that cRPGs don't have.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Director wrote...

[Watching the debate while occasionally looking back to check if his question was answered.]

And here I thought I finally was a part of the thread....

What question was that?

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Morrigans God son wrote...

Wrong again!

How persuasive.<_<

Well I won't say you are wrong, I would say that you are stating opinion like it should be fact. Also Dragon Age 2 could turn out like "New Coke" & I think the people & Coca-Cola though that that was a good idea too

[Maria Caliban]

The Director wrote...

[Watching the debate while occasionally looking back to check if his question was answered.]

And here I thought I finally was a part of the thread....

Sorry. Can you ask it again?

Maconbar wrote...

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I didn't ever make her blood mage. I am saying that I think that BW made a mistake when they allowed Wynne to become a blood mage without comment or penalty.

I agree with you. And I think the person who's arguing with you also probably agrees with you, but doesn't know it.*

*guessing

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[Maconbar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd say it's a pretty strong statement of opinion. Unless I explicitly describe something as objective fact, I'm speaking of my opinion. I did just that earlier in the thread on another off-topic sidetrack, in fact.

We'll see on sales. Or maybe we won't. It's not like the specific figures for DA:O and ME2 are open to the public.

I don't know what the "CoS" stands for either.

Community of Sailors