608 réponses à ce sujet

[Skellimancer]

 I was hoping New Vegas would be a success. Hopefully the Obsidian team could be persuaded to do an Elder Scrolls game.

[KLUME777]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
No, the topic is that New Vegas added depth and complexity and was praised for it while Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity: what does this mean for DA2? 

The topic is needlessly precise and tries to make a point based on a premise that is open to dispute.  Therefore, disputing the premise - eg, discussing the merits of New Vegas - is very much on topic.  Unless your assertion is that premises established in the original post are not open to challenge. 

I mean, it could simply be argued that since Fallout 3 is not Dragon Age: Origins, the entire discussion is bordering on irrelevant.  Just because one direction worked in a sequel for a particular game doesn't mean that a similar approach will work, or ought to work, in a sequel for another game.  Hence Bryy's "it's about as relevant as a Witcher thread" comment.

If, however, we're operating under the assumption that there is something to be taken from New Vegas' changes from Fallout 3, than any and all features of Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are open to discussion - even if to simply establish an argument that comparing them to Dragon Age is useless.

For example: By whose standard is New Vegas deeper than Fallout 3?  I played Fallout 3 relying on VATS quite a bit, VATS being something of an RPG mechanic in that it calculates success based on range and attributes and such.  In New Vegas, I played it almost exclusively as a pure shooter.  Is that a result of "streamlining" (lol shooters r dumb) or "adding depth" (sweet, my guns actually have iron sights now)? 

My interest in shooter mechanics and relative level of skill with shooters did not change from FO3 to FONV, so what does that change represent?

The reason they gimped VATS was becasue VATS was way overpowered in F3, they removed it to balance the game more, and IMO succeded.

E.G.

Some random Merc in the wasteland:
F3 = VATS.
F:NV= real time

Hard fight where in danger of death:
F3=small realtime, mostly VATS
F:NV combination of realtime and VATS

Its more balanced, because in F3 you used VATS for everything.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Skellimancer wrote...

 I was hoping New Vegas would be a success. Hopefully the Obsidian team could be persuaded to do an Elder Scrolls game.

I'd prefer Obsidian to try again with a new IP, to see if they could make one that would resonate with publishers

I'm too big of a Morrowind fanboy to want Obsidian to work on one, a main line one anyway. 

I'm just curious about what their ALiens RPG was like before SEga canned it

[KLUME777]

AlanC9 wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...


No, the topic is that New Vegas added depth and complexity and was praised for it while Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity: what does this mean for DA2?  The topic is not about New Vegas versus DA2, open world RPGs versus linear ones or dialogue/cinematic consequences versus gameplay consequences.

Even on those terms, In Exile's posts are on topic. He's plainly saying that NV didn't have depth and complexity.

Edit: haven't played it myself, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

In my opinion i think hes wrong, there is a ton of depth and complexity.

[KLUME777]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

One more point. Fallout 3 sold 4.7 million copies. Right now, New Vegas sold 2.0 million (that was in the first page or so, yes?). That means it caught half the audience of the original so far. Does that make it a success or failure?

Yeah noob bag, it's totally a fair comparison to look at the stats on a game that's been out for three weeks and compare it to a game that's gone GotY.

Yeah, me and a lot of other people took their Fallout 3 back to get the GotY Fallout 3, so a lot of people have 2 sales to Fallout 3. And New Vegas is less than a month old with 2 million sales, thats spectaculer.

[Skellimancer]

KLUME777 wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

One more point. Fallout 3 sold 4.7 million copies. Right now, New Vegas sold 2.0 million (that was in the first page or so, yes?). That means it caught half the audience of the original so far. Does that make it a success or failure?

Yeah noob bag, it's totally a fair comparison to look at the stats on a game that's been out for three weeks and compare it to a game that's gone GotY.

Yeah, me and a lot of other people took their Fallout 3 back to get the GotY Fallout 3, so a lot of people have 2 sales to Fallout 3. And New Vegas is less than a month old with 2 million sales, thats spectaculer.

They sold 2 million copies already? sweet!

[Onyx Jaguar]

Looks like it paid off not going up against Red Dead Redemption, the slayer of video games

[philbo1965uk]

How about people wait until the game comes out before calling it too easy, or too streamlined, or too this, or too that?  While much information has been released, we hardly have enough to make judgement calls on the entire game.

I've always been angered by posters with this mentality....."wait and see"

It's backward logic.

What is the point when you already paid for the game, its not like you are going to get a refund when you find it's garbage.

It's prudent therefore to garner as much information about an upcoming release BEFORE you buy it.

It's also prudent to treat silence as 'not a good thing'  .

With 20 years of gaming experience behind me I've always found when the Devs go quite or give ambigious reply to their 'new direction'..then they are invariably  hiding the fact the game is crap from the customer.

I think I'm going to pop over to DAO subsection for a while and reminisce , I don't enjoy posting negatively but there is nothing positive to say about DA2 atm

[Onyx Jaguar]

You know I was gushing dramatically over Doom3 before it came out and I should have waited and seen because that game...



Conversely everything I heard about Mass Effect back in 2006 and 2007 made me roll my eyes but instead, but when I got that game I was completely wrong

[Skellimancer]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You know I was gushing dramatically over Doom3 before it came out and I should have waited and seen because that game...

Conversely everything I heard about Mass Effect back in 2006 and 2007 made me roll my eyes but instead, but when I got that game I was completely wrong

Doom 3 was amazing.

With the classic doom mod 

[MEBengal2008]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Simple version:

Fallout New Vegas was praised for adding depth and complexity. Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity. Does this mean anything to Dragon Age 2 and Bioware? More specifically, will this
impact review scores? Sales? Public opinion? Will the game be effected in some minor way?
__________________________________________________________________

Long version:

New Vegas added a lot of complexity and roleplaying back into the Fallout 3 paradigm.  The factions make decisions matter, as pleasing often means losing gameplay oppotunities with the other.  You can actually fail quests, for instance.  The damage threshhold system (DT) actually makes killing a Deathclaw with a pistol almost impossible, as you need a weapon that can bust through its armor.  The hardcore mode adds roleplaying elements like eating, drinking and sleeping, plus companion permanent death.  The stat and perk systems were redesigned to keep a player from being a master of everything.

Rather than be bashed for this Obdisian seems to have earned much praise for it.  Pretty much every review only points out bugs as a negative, but praises the new elements and increased weight of choices and dialogue.  In contrast games like Fable 3 and Arcania: Gothic 4 were bashed by reviewers for being too simplified and without any complexity.  I was happy to see this, as I think most "old school" RPG gamers like myself were worried we were headed toward even simpler games, but this is a light in the tunnel so to speak.

So... my question is, what does this mean for Dragon Age 2?  Things are kind of foggy right now with not a lot of information out there, but the general consensus is that things are being streamlined compared to DA:O.  Is this the opposite of what the market is actually looking for now?  Does the added complexity in New Vegas and how well it was received point more toward keeping the complexity of DA:O or even expanding on it?  Perhaps Western RPGs are familiar enough to mainstream gamers now that they crave the depth and complexity the old school crowd wants back as well?

And what does it mean for Bioware as a whole?  Does the sucess of New Vegas and the comments against Fable and Arcania mean anything to Bioware for the future?  Will they look more at adding complexity and roleplaying mechanics back into their games?  Mass Effect 2 ditched a lot of RPG elements, will Bioware maybe feel confident about putting those elements back in the game to some extent?

These are actual questions, I am not looking to make a subversive point.  I was really surprised by New Vegas and how RPG it was, and then surprised again at how much praise that got from both fans and reviewers.  I want to know if it effects the future of multiplatform RPGs, and Dragon Age 2 in particular.

The thing with any great or bad CRPG is the game's story. BG1, BG2, NWN - SoU, NWN1 - HotU, NWN2 - OC, NWN2 - MotB, and DAO all had farily good stories. Some better than other but overall good stories. NWN1 - OC story was so bad that it barely was playable when released and may gamers held off purchasing it or used custom content over the OC to play NWN1.

If Bioware had a team working on the story along with the team developing the graphical part of the game and having the two teams work side by side throughout the process of the game than there is a very good chance the game will be great; however, if they pushed the game withou a well developed story than that is another issue all together.

Given that Dragon Age has been a Bioware project since 2000 or so they had plenty of time to create a few good stories for the Dragon Age series. Now it is a matter of implementing their stories into a game and providing gamers something great to play.

Since the demos out there are not a full part of a game, such as being able to play through one of the origins in DAO, than we will not know how this game will play or how well the story is written until it is released. This game could push Bioware to being the developer of the best CRPGs of our time or bring them down and possibly ruin their imagine. So until someone has a demo that is actually part of the game that provides some insight into the game story we will alljust have to sit tight and wait and see what Bioware has in store other than what we know about DAII.

[Piecake]

philbo1965uk wrote...

How about people wait until the game comes out before calling it too easy, or too streamlined, or too this, or too that?  While much information has been released, we hardly have enough to make judgement calls on the entire game.

I've always been angered by posters with this mentality....."wait and see"

It's backward logic.

What is the point when you already paid for the game, its not like you are going to get a refund when you find it's garbage.

It's prudent therefore to garner as much information about an upcoming release BEFORE you buy it.

It's also prudent to treat silence as 'not a good thing'  .

With 20 years of gaming experience behind me I've always found when the Devs go quite or give ambigious reply to their 'new direction'..then they are invariably  hiding the fact the game is crap from the customer.

I think I'm going to pop over to DAO subsection for a while and reminisce , I don't enjoy posting negatively but there is nothing positive to say about DA2 atm

"wait and see" doesnt mean youre not going to research the game before you buy it, it simply means that youre going to wait until that information is made available and then decide whether or not the game is worth purchasing. 

[Querne]

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

I tought CHOICES were the greater good because of witch we don´t get invidiual stories, races and Origins again. And interaction? You-can´t-talk-to-your-companions-on-the-road-anymore- Interaction?

You cut features out and give nothing instead.

Modifié par Querne, 15 novembre 2010 - 02:31 .

[In Exile]

KLUME777 wrote...

Because characters standing idle in Denerim all day is so much better...

I feel the opposite, i think the NV world is very alive.

Dont get me wrong, i love DAO to bits, but you unfairly bashing on NV.

I'm not unfairly bashing the game. I don't like its features. I mean, I could say the exact same thing about what you just did. That DA:O was not focused on adding flavour to non-critical NPCs, and so complaining about them instead of praising the game is unfair bashing.

Which of course is silly because you have your tastes just as I have mine, and the whole point of this discussion is to figure out what sort of games and features we like and want in DA2.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Querne wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

I tought CHOICES were the greater good because of witch we don´t get invidiual stories, races and Origins again. And interaction? You-can´t-talk-to-your-companions-on-the-road-anymore- Interaction?

You cut features out and give nothing instead.

THE GREATER GOOD, THE GREATER GOOD

[hexaligned]

Querne wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

I tought CHOICES were the greater good because of witch we don´t get invidiual stories, races and Origins again. And interaction? You-can´t-talk-to-your-companions-on-the-road-anymore- Interaction?

You cut features out and give nothing instead.

Hey now, at least they cut the game length by 3/4, even if DA2 straight up sucks... at least it won't suck for long.
You need to stay positive about these things.

(said tongue-in-cheek fanbois, I can hear you gnashing your teeth from here)

[Xewaka]

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

The fact that Brent Knowles dropped from the DA 2 project seems to give weight to the highlighted part (just finished reading his ten years in Bioware blog summary).

[nisallik]

I'm sure BioWare will not have any problems with depth for Dragon Age 2. Now, I have yet to play New Vegas as each time I try to play FO3 I get bored with the complete lack of direction/story. You could actually take any one of the six origin beginnings from DAO and it would be better than anything Bethesda could do direction/story wise. The closest they have ever gotten would be the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion.



Obsidian seems to work well making expansions/sequels to game series, but making one from a lifeless game makes me a little hesitant to try it.

[Eiia]

For me, NV was ten times more enjoyable than F3... Alot better writing, more balanced, and most importantly it actually had c&c that affected the gameworld unlike f3's illusion of c&c...

Regarding DA2, I'm not exactly super excited about the changes made, but I have no doubt that I'm going to enjoy the game nevertheless.

[Cigne]

Heh, I see the Fallouts as games where "you pull a trigger and something awesome happens"; or "you push a button and something special happens".

Ouch, I'm sorry.



Really I see both sequels as games where the devs looked at the original, and tried (are trying) to improve the areas that they felt were lacking. DAO had more rpg depth than F3 (imo, okay?) so F3 focused on adding that, while streamlining some gameplay (VATS, for instance).



Streamlining to IMPROVE.



DAO had gameplay elements that the devs feel are in need of improvement, and streamlined rpg elements (Inventory, for instance).



Still, in the end you're comparing pause n' play/twitch games. Ignoring that factor in the OP is a mistake, imo. This question is would be better suited for a comparision between ME3 and FNV.



There are players that wanted to play the ME games but found them too frustrating because the gameplay is twitch based. That's going to skew the purchasing demographic away from old schoolers and towards FPS fans (who are looking for something more in their shooters).



Nor really something that's going to mean a lot for DA2.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Xewaka wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

The fact that Brent Knowles dropped from the DA 2 project seems to give weight to the highlighted part (just finished reading his ten years in Bioware blog summary).

One guy left after TEN YEARS! It's a mother****ing exodus!

[slumlord722]

He did say that the game was moving away from what he liked

[Blessed Silence]

I don't really care honestly. For me BioWare and Bethseda are both great companies and I am behind them both, so I buy their games.

[AlanC9]

philbo1965uk wrote...

How about people wait until the game comes out before calling it too easy, or too streamlined, or too this, or too that?  While much information has been released, we hardly have enough to make judgement calls on the entire game.

I've always been angered by posters with this mentality....."wait and see"

It's backward logic.

What is the point when you already paid for the game, its not like you are going to get a refund when you find it's garbage.

It's prudent therefore to garner as much information about an upcoming release BEFORE you buy it.

It's also prudent to treat silence as 'not a good thing'  .

With 20 years of gaming experience behind me I've always found when the Devs go quite or give ambigious reply to their 'new direction'..then they are invariably  hiding the fact the game is crap from the customer.

I think I'm going to pop over to DAO subsection for a while and reminisce , I don't enjoy posting negatively but there is nothing positive to say about DA2 atm

This is an astoundingly confused post. People are telling you to wait and see until the game is actually released, silly, not to buy it and then see.

And what, exactly, have the devs been ambiguous about?

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

This is an astoundingly confused post. People are telling you to wait and see until the game is actually released, silly, not to buy it and then see.

And what, exactly, have the devs been ambiguous about?

That's an awesome marketing push. ''Buy our product (no refunds!) and see if you like it The less research, the better - it's like Kinder Surprise!''