1080 réponses à ce sujet

[Ulicus]

tmp7704 wrote...

And is the quality of that companion-related writing a direct result of said companions being locked in single, predefined appearance? Or are these things totally unrelated and such bringing up Planescape in this context is very much a red herring?

When the claim being (repeatedly) made is that the inability to customise the appearance of every companion makes this "less of an RPG" and "dumbed down" I'm at a loss as to how mentioning PS:T -- lauded as a fantastic RPG: one about as RPGy as an RPG can possibly be -- could be construed as "very much a red-herring". 

Perhaps there was a community of online folk that bemoaned the inability to equip Fall-From-Grace in full plate... but I never ran across them. People did fuss -- in some quarters -- about the inability to customise the Nameless One's appearance and gender... but DA2 has that covered pretty well with Hawke.

On my end -- and perhaps I'm being really silly --  not being able to fantastically equip any and all items of clothing you find lying around the place strikes me as significantly more hardcore than the opposite.

Now, by all means, people who are frustrated with this change should continue to be frustrated. You like what you like, and all that. All I know is that the inability to (heavily) customise the appearace of the companion characters in PS:T did not remotely detract from their being awesome characters and it certainly didn't make PS:T feel "mainstream", "less hardcore" or "dumbed down".

You can have your fish back.

[addiction21]

In Exile wrote...

But why are you the core? Why am I not the core, who's been with Bioware since KoTOR? What makes your tastes special? You see Bioware as doing everything wrong and they are in danger of losing your business. I think they're doing everything right and they have to really screw up to lose mine.

Why are you the core and why aren't I?

How about those of us around here that have been around since SHattered Steel? Do we get to win The Most Abused Core Audiance award?

[AlanC9]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...
We might have grown up with a different Bioware. I grew up with the Bioware that created true RPG masterpieces like Baldur's Gate and NWN while the most recent Bioware created...good games that just did not get close to what they used to produce in the "good ol' days".

Well, I was already grown when I discovered Bioware. I grew up on stuff like Might and Magic 1 , Ultima 3, and Zork.

I also don't think that NWN1 was as good as ME1 or DAO. Wasn't bad, just wasn't as good. Then again, I think that DAO was much better than BG2 in several areas, so it's likely we substantially disagree on what makes a game good.

That  being said, I do agree with this:

Why? Because of the video game market. Back at BG time, games were more or less a niche genre and nowadays, games are incredibly well-known and the market is as capitalist as possible.

Yeah, gaming itself was a niche ten years ago or so. Anyone who liked PCs enough to play with them was different from most people.

I don't really agree with this, though:

BG was awesome because it was completely fair. It was hard. Very hard. You either took some time and dug in the rules or you had no chance and stopped playing. Those you did play it are core gamers. People who love games and are willing to spend some time on them. People with an attention span of more than 30 minutes. People who were tough...kinda.

I found BG about as easy to master as DAO. Achieving mastery was annoying, but not hard. To stop Confusion, etc, effects, you need to read through a lot of junk to find the spell you need. Mage duels were easier to master because all you need to do is read the loadscreens rather than the manual. The first dragon you meet will probably kill you unless you read the manual and realized that you needed to stop their fear effect. So you reload, look at the manual, find the spells that stop Fear, and beat him next time.

I may be an outlier here, though. There are somewhat more things you need to remember in BG because of the buff/debuff structure, and someone who can't remember that many things would find the game difficult.

BG also had much more busy-work than DAO, since things that can be automated in DAO have to be done by hand. But that doesn't mean it's harder, and doing everything by hand may very well give some people more of a sense of accomplishment.

And I'm not all that happy with your use of "core" in the post; it's not really descriptive. Unless it's just rhetoric.

[Ulicus]

addiction21 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

But why are you the core? Why am I not the core, who's been with Bioware since KoTOR? What makes your tastes special? You see Bioware as doing everything wrong and they are in danger of losing your business. I think they're doing everything right and they have to really screw up to lose mine.

Why are you the core and why aren't I?

How about those of us around here that have been around since SHattered Steel? Do we get to win The Most Abused Core Audiance award?

[AlanC9]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...
"Core gamer" does not mean "sticking around with something for a while", "core gamer" means people who are into complex games, willing to spend time on them whereas "casual gamers" are the opposite - they need someone who holds their hands because they are unwilling to learn stuff.

 I don't see why people who are into complex games should be described as "core" gamers. It sounds nicer than "nerds," but it's not meaningful.

[Dave of Canada]

addiction21 wrote...

How about those of us around here that have been around since SHattered Steel? Do we get to win The Most Abused Core Audiance award?

"BIOWARE SHOULD GO BACK TO IT'S ROOTS AND MAKE A MECH SHOOTER GAME."

Honestly, though. This next point isn't related to you, addiction21 - just me saying:
Nobody cares how long you've been here, nobody cares if you can dance while juggling sharp knives. Somebody who's been here for ages doesn't have a superior opinion to somebody who comes onto these forums because they liked say... ME2 and never heard of Bioware before then.

[upsettingshorts]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Nobody cares how long you've been here, nobody cares if you can dance while juggling sharp knives. Somebody who's been here for ages doesn't have a superior opinion to somebody who comes onto these forums because they liked say... ME2 and never heard of Bioware before then.

The impression I get from the forums sometimes is that anyone who discovered Bioware after playing ME2 on a console might as well be sub-human.

A more common one is that any Bioware fan who's been around since Baldur's Gate can't possibly be in favor of any of the recent changes because "true fans" are something of a homogenous mass of undifferentiated opinion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 07:58 .

[ErichHartmann]

I demand BioWare develop MDK3!

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
You know, for all the praises people heap onto Planescape, companions don't seem to get a mention as the highlight/memorable aspect of the game. Or the combat. Or character customization.

... or pretty much anything other than "the writing was awesome and you could win the game picking one response in dialogue"

When people talk about the writing, a lot of that necessarily involves the companions.

And is the quality of that companion-related writing a direct result of said companions being locked in single, predefined appearance? Or are these things totally unrelated and such bringing up Planescape in this context is very much a red herring?

So you were bringing up your own red herring to distract from the earlier red herring?

Or were you trying to make an argument that PS:T is a worse game than it could have been because it did the same thing with loot that DA2 is doing?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I demand BioWare develop MDK3!

Call the smoking ashes of Interplay, I'm sure they'll get right on it.

[tmp7704]

Ulicus wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

And is the quality of that companion-related writing a direct result of said companions being locked in single, predefined appearance? Or are these things totally unrelated and such bringing up Planescape in this context is very much a red herring?

When the claim being (repeatedly) made is that the inability to customise the appearance of every companion makes this "less of an RPG" and "dumbed down" I'm at a loss as to how mentioning PS:T -- lauded as a fantastic RPG: one about as RPGy as an RPG can possibly be -- could be construed as "very much a red-herring".

I think it can be one when Planescape being good RPG is largely result of factors other than ability to equip the companions (or lack thereof) Unless you are making an argument that Planescape is excellent RPG because the appearance of companions is locked?

To put it differently -- Planescape being good game as it is doesn't mean it couldn't be even better (or to use your wording "even more of an RPG" if it wasn't limited in this particular regard. At least in the eyes of these who do see companion customization as a plus when it comes to RPG experience.

Finally, there's another factor here and that's visual fidelity -- ability to tweak the appearances matters less when you can barely tell general outlines of the characters to begin with. As such, this particular limitation can matter less for Planescape than it may matter for game where characters are featured close and personal.

[AlanC9]

Wyndham711 wrote...

That isn't a solution to anything -- anyone who thought the DAO bodies were a problem would find that to be even worse. It works for you, sure, but that's because you didn't have a problem in the first place.

How so? Assuming the outfits would scale throughout the game (as they now will), the people who want to have their characters look more 'unique' could well do so without any trouble, but conversly people who enjoyed Origins' system and who want more choice in the matter would have their way as well.

As said earlier, it would require design compromises for the custom NPCs meshes to make them interchangeable with the mooks, to borrow In Exile's phrase. Unless you simply have unrelated looks for iconic and generic versions of the companions; that would work adequately for someone who never even looked at the other version, I guess. The game would look a little incompetent if you switched between them, but that probably wouldn't be a big deal.

The cutscene guys and animations guys would probably hate it, though. You'd probably see compromises all down the line if this was adopted.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:12 .

[FedericoV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Nobody cares how long you've been here, nobody cares if you can dance while juggling sharp knives. Somebody who's been here for ages doesn't have a superior opinion to somebody who comes onto these forums because they liked say... ME2 and never heard of Bioware before then.

The impression I get from the forums sometimes is that anyone who discovered Bioware after playing ME2 on a console might as well be sub-human.

A more common one is that any Bioware fan who's been around since Baldur's Gate can't possibly be in favor of any of the recent changes because "true fans" are something of a homogenous mass of undifferentiated opinion.

Well... I'm a Bio fan since the time of BG I. I love BG I & II and I consider them my best gaming experience (mind, not the best games... it's something different). Personally, I'm in favour with most if not all of the changes in DA2. The only one I have problem with is the loss of iso view. Gaming has changed in years, Bioware is trying something different with each game. They could do like Blizzard and just add level of polish and better graphics to their franchises, one game after the other, allways the same experience. But instead they change and I like the attitude even if from time to time the result of the changes do not meet dev expectations.

In some way I see in Bioware a reflection of P&P RPG history. They have started with D&D and now they are trying to do in CRPGs what the storytelling system have done to RPGs. It's an interesting journey and I like to be part of it.

Modifié par FedericoV, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:25 .

[Ulicus]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think it can be one when Planescape being good RPG is largely result of factors other than ability to equip the companions (or lack thereof) Unless you are making an argument that Planescape is excellent RPG because the appearance of companions is locked?

No, that certainly is not my argument.

Though I also think Dragon Age being a good RPG was largely the result of factors other than the ability to equip the companions, as well: that was kind of the point.

I guess we're just completely at odds, here.

Modifié par Ulicus, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:21 .

[crimzontearz]

FedericoV wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Nobody cares how long you've been here, nobody cares if you can dance while juggling sharp knives. Somebody who's been here for ages doesn't have a superior opinion to somebody who comes onto these forums because they liked say... ME2 and never heard of Bioware before then.

The impression I get from the forums sometimes is that anyone who discovered Bioware after playing ME2 on a console might as well be sub-human.

A more common one is that any Bioware fan who's been around since Baldur's Gate can't possibly be in favor of any of the recent changes because "true fans" are something of a homogenous mass of undifferentiated opinion.

Well... I'm a Bio fan since the time of BG I. I love BG I & II and I consider them my best gaming experience (mind, not the best games... it's something different). Personally, I'm in favour with most if not all of the changes in DA2. The only one I have problem with is the loss of iso view. Gaming has changed in years, Bioware is trying something different with each game. They could do like Blizzard and just add level of polish and better graphics to their franchises, one game after the other, allways the same experience. But instead they change and I like the attitude even if from time to time the result of the changes do not meet dev expectations.

I don't know but in Bioware I see in some way a reflection of P&P RPG history. They have started with D&D and nowthey are trying to do in videogames what the storytelling system have done to RPGs. It's an interesting journey and I like to be part of it.

Well Federico I discovered Bioware through BG and MDK...althiugh BG never appealed to me very much because I never liked the forgotten realms as a setting (muchly preferred ravenloft)...muchto the dismay of my DND group Massimiliano + Marco who hated dealing with it

No...bioware is more the symbol of a gaming company whose producs I can and will play more than 100 hours each...only company that ever did that for me

[Behindyounow]

I'm going to be honest here. I don't give a crap. I didn't exactly hate having to seperately equip all my companions, but I'm not going to miss it.



Unless a character looks really damn stupid, and I want to change what they're wearing.

[tmp7704]

Ulicus wrote...

Though I also think Dragon Age being a good RPG was largely the result of factors other than the ability to equip the companions, as well: that was kind of the point.

I guess we're just completely at odds, here.

No, i'll agree that  DA was good game largely thanks to factors other than ability to equip companions, too. I do think however that the ability helped/contributed to some degree as well, and the game would be less entertaining overall if it was lacking. So maybe not completely at odds, but having somewhat different view on it.

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

When the claim being (repeatedly) made is that the inability to customise the appearance of every companion makes this "less of an RPG" and "dumbed down" I'm at a loss as to how mentioning PS:T -- lauded as a fantastic RPG: one about as RPGy as an RPG can possibly be -- could be construed as "very much a red-herring".

I think it can be one when Planescape being good RPG is largely result of factors other than ability to equip the companions (or lack thereof) Unless you are making an argument that Planescape is excellent RPG because the appearance of companions is locked?

To put it differently -- Planescape being good game as it is doesn't mean it couldn't be even better (or to use your wording "even more of an RPG" if it wasn't limited in this particular regard. At least in the eyes of these who do see companion customization as a plus when it comes to RPG experience.

OK, so you were making that argument.

But even if PS:T succeeded despite not having meaningful companion inventory -- as opposed to that feature being irrelevant to the success or failure of an RPG - it is reasonable to infer from that success that the presence or absence of such inventory is not all that significant. 

There are other successful RPGs with no inventory or weak inventory; PS:T's just the best known before ME2.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Wyndham711]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

That isn't a solution to anything -- anyone who thought the DAO bodies were a problem would find that to be even worse. It works for you, sure, but that's because you didn't have a problem in the first place.

How so? Assuming the outfits would scale throughout the game (as they now will), the people who want to have their characters look more 'unique' could well do so without any trouble, but conversly people who enjoyed Origins' system and who want more choice in the matter would have their way as well.

As said earlier, it would require design compromises for the custom NPCs meshes to make them interchangeable with the mooks, to borrow In Exile's phrase. Unless you simply have unrelated looks for iconic and generic versions of the companions; that would work adequately for someone who never even looked at the other version, I guess. The game would look a little incompetent if you switched between them, but that probably wouldn't be a big deal.

The cutscene guys and animations guys would probably hate it, though. You'd probably see compromises all down the line if this was adopted.

Yeah, it probably just comes down to the fact that I'm willing to sacriface virtually any amount of progress on the visual/graphical side of things if it helps in freeing resources for designing and implementing more complex and choice-oriented gameplay systems. I wouldn't at all mind if the game looked 'a little incompetent', if it meant that the gear/loot system was more involved and awarded me with more choices and possibilities for in depth tinkering.

I know that other people give more weight on the visual side of things, and such graphical aspects concern them more. I understand their and my desires aren't compatible in this case with the given resources. And when push comes to shove, I guess most of the time the visual side of things will end up winning over gameplay in situations like this.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:36 .

[Maconbar]

I may have missed this but with the changes to companion body models will that eliminate the bolted on head look?

[In Exile]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...


"Core gamer" does not mean "sticking around with something for a while", "core gamer" means people who are into complex games, willing to spend time on them whereas "casual gamers" are the opposite - they need someone who holds their hands because they are unwilling to learn stuff.

The problem is that a casual gamer, by your definition, can switch into a core gamer depending on the game. It depends on how interested you are in the game at hand. 

And you will go to hell for saying that BG was not awesome!

The absence of lynching so far is a positive, I think.

tmp7704 wrote...
To put it differently -- Planescape
being good game as it is doesn't mean it couldn't be even better (or to
use your wording "even more of an RPG" if it wasn't limited in
this particular regard. At least in the eyes of these who do see
companion customization as a plus when it comes to RPG experience.

Certainly. What the example of PS:T is designed to illustrate is that a game can be considered an excellent RPG ( a true RPG) without this ability, and so the mere fact that DA2 excludes it does not make it an not an RPG, nor does it mean that Bioware is dumbing the product down or with this one feature trying to appeal to the masses.

This is the argument the example wants to cut off, I think.

Finally,
there's another factor here and that's visual fidelity -- ability to
tweak the appearances matters less when you can barely
tell general outlines of the characters to begin with. As such, this
particular limitation can matter less for Planescape than it may matter
for game where characters are featured close and personal.

Still had to tolerate their portraits, and the fixed and ugly mug of the Nameless One, so to me this isn't much less of a sore spot.

[addiction21]

Maconbar wrote...

I may have missed this but with the changes to companion body models will that eliminate the bolted on head look?

I would assume that since the companions will be keeping their body models thruout that  wont be a problem. Just a guess.



P.S.
I juggle Kittens, Puppies, and chainsaws. It occasionally gets messy but thats part of the fun.

[In Exile]

Wyndham711 wrote...
Yeah, it probably just comes down to the fact that I'm willing to sacriface virtually any amount of progress on the visual/graphical side of things if it helps in freeing resources for designing and implementing more complex and choice-oriented gameplay systems. I wouldn't at all mind if the game looked 'a little incompetent', if it meant that the gear/loot system was more involved and awarded me with more choices and possibilities for in depth tinkering.

I know that other people give more weight on the visual side of things, and such graphical aspects concern them more. I understand their and my desires aren't compatible in this case with the given resources. And when push comes to shove, I guess most of the time the visual side of things will end up winning over gameplay in situations like this.

At least for my position, it is not the visual or graphical side of things that matters. It is the story and atmosphere. I want companions to have custom apperances because, in my ideal game, this apperance is itself part of the plot and tied to quests. Upgrading armour would involve a side-quest of sorts, where the NPC would identify and armour they'd like and discuss with the PC purchasing it, and the option to do so or not would be an active part of the game.

Essentially, I am firmly against any intrusion by the imagination in a game. I want all my content upfront. If Bioware (for example) had outfit swaps based on story moments or player choices, that would be laudable. Using a custom mesh is a minor benefit visually, but the end goal (for me) is that the mesh becomes an integral part of the experience of the story.

In general, I do not believe in empty choice. The game has to acknowledge it in a real way, not a min-max way. So inventory is never choice, unless my inventory is acknowledged in-game.

[Ceesko]

Wyndham711 wrote...

I guess I just generally don't understand the ideal that the party member should be more visually distinct at all cost. I think what made me care so deeply about and relate so easily to the Origins party members had nothing to do with their appearance. I actually appreciated the fact that the one's I most liked were the least 'distinct'. It made them feel tangible, actual people.
The people I interact day to day with don't look particularly 'visually distinct'. They look bland, they don't have flashy outfits and they aren't in any way iconic. That an RPG character can make such a deep and memorable impact with their personality alone is I think what should be valued and emphasized. If anything, giving such strong focus on shiny outfits is in conflict with that idea to some extent.
And all this is just in terms of me enjoying the characters and the redundancy of the change - on the gameplay side of things I think the remifications of this and other similar changes will be even more severe.
I really don't understand what they think they are gaining with this change? Sure, individual looks for the characters, but those could have been added without demolishing the previous succesful system. I feel they took one step forward and ten steps backwards.

You just said everything in my mind. I think this is a horrible change. Characters should be based on their personality, not shiny outfits. DA2 is become way cartoonish.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

But even if PS:T succeeded despite not having meaningful companion inventory -- as opposed to that feature being irrelevant to the success or failure of an RPG - it is reasonable to infer from that success that the presence or absence of such inventory is not all that significant. 

There are other successful RPGs with no inventory or weak inventory; PS:T's just the best known before ME2.

I think "not all that" is somewhat misleading -- taken on individual basis it can be said about any feature, in the sense that it can be outweighted by several well done other aspects. For example, the multitude of successful JRPGs shows that having ability to make choices in RPG isn't all that significant, either. etc.

So i'm not sure if this conclusion that presence/absence of this individual aspect isn't not all that significant ... can warrant much more than just a "duh" in response. Yes, it certainly isn't crucial, but it doesn't mean the lack of it cannot be irritating for these who do attach some value to it.

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:53 .