608 réponses à ce sujet

[StingingVelvet]

mopotter wrote...

Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.

What do you mean by "interaction"?  I would argue quite strongly that you interact with the world and with NPCs a lot more in a Fallout game than in any recent Bioware game.

Which is not a slight against Bioware mind you, it's just they create more defined worlds and characters you can't mess with and change as much.  In Fallout 3 you could change the radio DJ by killing the current one, for example.  In New Vegas you can decide who takes over the entire game world.  Nothing Bioware has done from KotOR on has offered anywhere near that level of interaction with the game world.

I'm assuming you just meant it has a lot more dialogue and cinematic story, but "interaction" is a very weird word to use for that.  "Guided" and "cinematic" are words I would use (again, not a slight on Bioware).

[ChickenDownUnder]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Good thing I didn't do that then.

I know right. It's not like it is in the title or anything. Whew, you dodged a bullet right there.

[StingingVelvet]

Meltemph wrote...

What complexity are you talking about? You keep saying it, but you are not describing it. The stats are as straight forward as they have ever been, hardcore mode was just a time sink and inventory management... What is this complexity you are talking about? Unless you mean story?

It's all listed in the OP, just read that.  They did a lot more than just add hardcore mode.

Let me try to boil this down to a fundemantal level for you though.  Obsidian was hired to make a spin-off of Fallout 3 using the same engine and for the same platforms.  When they took on this job they decided "hey, let's ADD some depth and complexity to certain areas."  This goes against the trends of the current gaming industry where, on average, depth and complexity are being removed to appeal to a larger audience.  Isn't that interesting?

I think it is.  And they had success with it.  Sales are strong, reviews all point out the new elements as positives and most people on RPG forums and blogs are praising New Vegas as a massive improvement.

What does this mean for Bioware, who openly state that streamlining is their chosen course?

[StingingVelvet]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Good thing I didn't do that then.

I know right. It's not like it is in the title or anything. Whew, you dodged a bullet right there.

If you only read the title and ignore everything else I could see how you could be confused.

[ErichHartmann]

In all fairness Bethesda made significant streamline choices from Morrowind to Oblivion/Fallout 3.

[StingingVelvet]

ErichHartmann wrote...

In all fairness Bethesda made significant streamline choices from Morrowind to Oblivion/Fallout 3.

Yes, Morrowind to Oblivion was like a complete depth removal kit was used.  They added some back in for FO3 though, and obviously approved Obsidian adding back in more in New Vegas.  Their next game will be interesting to see.

I think there is merit to the idea that Western RPGs were being introduced to console gamers in the Oblivion era and the idea was that as an introduction for a new audience they needed to be more streamlined.  Perhaps that introduction is over and now some depth can be added back in?  It's an intriguing idea.

[Grand_Commander13]

I tried Morrowind; Bethesda didn't pull out much that was worth having. I like the grand maps, the fact that cities aren't self-contained cells, and the 3D element to the dungeon Levitate could bring so long as cities weren't self-contained cells. Nothing else impressed me for all the crying about its absence.

I mean, they were complaining about running not draining stamina. Come on.

[ChickenDownUnder]

StingingVelvet wrote...

If you only read the title and ignore everything else I could see how you could be confused.

It was more the many paragraphs describing FV and pointing out all the ways DAII might be different and how that would affect sales and so on, but I can see how you could be confused as well.

If you are going to assume things about people, then I can certainly pretend to do so too.

But please, carry on. I like you now. It makes me want to give you a doggy biscuit.

[Herr Uhl]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Yes, Morrowind to Oblivion was like a complete depth removal kit was used.  They added some back in for FO3 though, and obviously approved Obsidian adding back in more in New Vegas.  Their next game will be interesting to see.

I don't think that acquiring a relatively complex game-franchise and simplifying it counts as becoming better, or adding.

[Kileyan]

Other other thread touched on a couple things and it was suggested to move conversation to here.

1) Conversation options and more usage of stats and skills. I wouldn't mind to see more conversation choices that with appropriate npcs or situations, reflect you have high alchemy, poison, whatever skill. Maybe even a situation where high tactics or something lets you affect the defense of someplace or a battle that is coming.

Wouldn't it be great if some of those npcs that always die with their last breath, could be stabilized or saved with some master knowledge of poison or alchemy, just to change things up? (yeh I know troublesome in a game with healing magic)

I wouldn't mind at all, that a few ruins or hidden areas pop up as random encounters if you have max'd survival. Some animal encounters that can be avoided if you wish, and have high survival.

2) Open world, I don't want an aimless open world with little story, or a story that is almost irrelevant. I like the story based gameplay as it is. However, I wouldn't mind at all more hidden caves, lost ruins of old cities, things that have nothing to do with the story. Everything doesn't have to related to the main story. We could uncover ruins of places that do little more than give us some codex entries and history of civilizations that existed before the history we know. We might find the ruins of a small outpost of the first Qunari to enter our lands. Maybe we'll find the ruined stables of the Wardens mighty griffons on a high mountain. No purpose but to remind us we are in this world with a history, not just running place to place checking off the main quest log.

Ya know, more little things that add a sense of wonder and exploration. Things that make you feel like your character stumbled upon things people hadn't seen for centuries. DA had this, but it was always places that were part of the main quest. I just wouldn't mind a little extra places to explore thrown in:)

[mopotter]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Your right.  I don't buy FallOut for the same reason as I buy one of BioWare games. 

Whereas, I buy all games for basically the same reason.  There's one thing I want from games, and I judge solely on their ability to provide that one thing.

The games I buy all have one thing in common, I have fun playing them.  But I play Fable 3 for a mindless kind of fun, Fallout style for wondering around exploring without having to do the main quest and BioWare games because I love the way the tell the story and have NPC's that make me care about them.     :innocent:

edit - left out a ]

Modifié par mopotter, 16 novembre 2010 - 02:29 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Kileyan wrote...

Other other thread touched on a couple things and it was suggested to move conversation to here.

1) Conversation options and more usage of stats and skills. I wouldn't mind to see more conversation choices that with appropriate npcs or situations, reflect you have high alchemy, poison, whatever skill. Maybe even a situation where high tactics or something lets you affect the defense of someplace or a battle that is coming.

I think the problem is that, while FO3 and NV displayed the actual stats needed, Origins did not, creating the illusion of more features.

[StingingVelvet]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

If you only read the title and ignore everything else I could see how you could be confused.

It was more the many paragraphs describing FV and pointing out all the ways DAII might be different and how that would affect sales and so on, but I can see how you could be confused as well.

If you are going to assume things about people, then I can certainly pretend to do so too.

But please, carry on. I like you now. It makes me want to give you a doggy biscuit.

As I just wrote, the premise is simple: F:NV added depth in a time when adding depth is considered bad.  It has been met with success, generally.  What does this mean for DA2 and Bioware's future?

None of that has anything to do with comparing the gameplay of the two titles, other than talking about how the genre differences (tactical RPG versus open world RPG) make adding depth a different thing.

[Kileyan]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

Other other thread touched on a couple things and it was suggested to move conversation to here.

1) Conversation options and more usage of stats and skills. I wouldn't mind to see more conversation choices that with appropriate npcs or situations, reflect you have high alchemy, poison, whatever skill. Maybe even a situation where high tactics or something lets you affect the defense of someplace or a battle that is coming.

I think the problem is that, while FO3 and NV displayed the actual stats needed, Origins did not, creating the illusion of more features.

Not really, it wasn't like we had a bunch of hidden choices in DA. It was still displayed when you could use persuasion, you just might not have enough persuasion. The fact was, none of the other skills were used at all, that i recall except for a single time use of survival in the elf camp.

Anyways I don't want to arrgue a ****** for tat of DA vs Fallout. I like both games. Just saying I'd like to see the skills used more often in dialog or other choices,

What makes it seem like DA has less features is really that Bioware made the decision that the persuasion skill is the catch all skill for every dialog choice. Nothing is really wrong with that and I'll enjoy the game just fine if the only conversation modifier is a single skill.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
What do you mean by "interaction"?  I would argue quite strongly that you interact with the world and with NPCs a lot more in a Fallout game than in any recent Bioware game.

I'm assuming you just meant it has a lot more dialogue and cinematic story, but "interaction" is a very weird word to use for that.  "Guided" and "cinematic" are words I would use (again, not a slight on Bioware).

You really need to accept that not everyone uses the same definition of interactive you do. You happen to think that whatever epilogue choice you get based on quest exclusivity and faction score is interactivity. Some people think that their slightly altered dialogue choices and cut-scene is interactivity. It's all illusion of choice, but it's all about which illusion of choice you like more.

Kileyan wrote...

Other other thread touched on a couple
things and it was suggested to move conversation to here.

1)
Conversation options and more usage of stats and skills. I wouldn't mind
to see more conversation choices that with appropriate npcs or
situations, reflect you have high alchemy, poison, whatever skill. Maybe
even a situation where high tactics or something lets you affect the
defense of someplace or a battle that is coming.

Wouldn't it be
great if some of those npcs that always die with their last breath,
could be stabilized or saved with some master knowledge of poison or
alchemy, just to change things up? (yeh I know troublesome in a game
with healing magic)

I wouldn't mind at all, that a few ruins or
hidden areas pop up as random encounters if you have max'd survival.
Some animal encounters that can be avoided if you wish, and have high
survival.

For whatever reason, Bioware is not fond of statistic driven dialogue choice, outside of a very general "persuade" option. Personally, I have never understood this. It makes so much more sense to have different conversation checks, and this is about the one RP thing Obsidian always does well.

Your character feels like your character when you get the specific building having an impact, via persuade, intelligence, repair, whatever options.

2) Open world, I don't want an aimless open world with
little story, or a story that is almost irrelevant. I like the story
based gameplay as it is. However, I wouldn't mind at all more hidden
caves, lost ruins of old cities, things that have nothing to do with the
story. Everything doesn't have to related to the main story.

I disagree. I think introducing stuff that doesn't relate to the main story introduces the Mass Effect problem: why would you waste time looking at totally non-plot critical content except for meta-game reasons? This is a big problem with any story-driven RPG. Basically, the only people that would actually go out and explore the world are explorers. Anything else is just nonsensical.

We could
uncover ruins of places that do little more than give us some codex
entries and history of civilizations that existed before the history we
know. We might find the ruins of a small outpost of the first Qunari to
enter our lands. Maybe we'll find the ruined stables of the Wardens
mighty griffons on a high mountain. No purpose but to remind us we are
in this world with a history, not just running place to place checking
off the main quest log.

Ya know, more little things that add a
sense of wonder and exploration. Things that make you feel like your
character stumbled upon things people hadn't seen for centuries. DA had
this, but it was always places that were part of the main quest. I just
wouldn't mind a little extra places to explore thrown in:)

That just makes for an entirely different world, and a different design. Basically, I think at its core there is always a trade-off between the world and the story. You can't have a tight story while allowing exploration, unless you somehow make that exploration part of the story (and that becomes problematic in itself).

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

You really need to accept that not everyone uses the same definition of interactive you do. You happen to think that whatever epilogue choice you get based on quest exclusivity and faction score is interactivity. Some people think that their slightly altered dialogue choices and cut-scene is interactivity. It's all illusion of choice, but it's all about which illusion of choice you like more.

Nah.

You have a lot more choice and effect on the world in Fallout New Vegas.  You decide who wins, you decide who gets to live and die, you decide whether you are pure evil, pure good or somewhere in between.  In Dragon Age the story is set, you just make smaller character decisions along the way which effect more minor things.

That's not a bashing of Bioware, I really LOVE Bioware games, hence why I am on the Bioware board.  That they make more scripted, linear games that don't let you effect the world as much is a given though.  It's been a given for a long time.  That's great though, not every RPG or RPG developer should be the same.

[LTD]

Haven't read the thread besides OP so just brief, potentially unconstructive remark!

New Vegas and it's sales figures serves as a great reminder of how a person can look very good even if you don't cut the fat off with a butcher's knife. Actually, cutting fat can result in very unappealing mess, even!



Ofc, there are no more lessons to be learned or new directions to be taken when it comes to DA II, it's mere few months from release. So if we assume the current release estimation isn't pushed back by some six more months, surely nothing major gets reimagined or chnaged by this point.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Nah.

You have a lot more choice and effect on the world in Fallout New Vegas.  You decide who wins, you decide who gets to live and die, you decide whether you are pure evil, pure good or somewhere in between.  In Dragon Age the story is set, you just make smaller character decisions along the way which effect more minor things.

You can make tons of choice in Dragon Age.

You decide who lives and dies (Connor, Isolde, Alistair, Loghain, various captured enemies, Sten, Zevran, Leliana, Wynne), You can be pure evil (have the werewolves kill the elves, corrupt the ashes of Andraste) or pure good (save the blood mages, sacrifice everything to try and save Connor, destroy the anvil of the void, save the elves and werewolves) or somewhere in between. You decide who wins (Alistair or Anora for Ferelden; Bhelen or Harrowmont for the dwarves; Zathrian, Witherfang or both for the elves).

If we're going to talk about potential effects on the world, you make a huge number of decisions in Dragon Age.

Sure, these decisions are very scripted, but they're really scripted in New Vegas too - they're just triggered to question completition, quest exclusion (which in NV includes plot NC dead yes or no) and faction score.

Seriously, we can play this game all day.

That's not a bashing of Bioware, I really LOVE Bioware games, hence why I am on the Bioware board.  That they make more scripted, linear games that don't let you effect the world as much is a given though.  It's been a given for a long time.  That's great though, not every RPG or RPG developer should be the same.

Bioware games are certainly more scripted and linear. I 100% agree. But that doesn't mean they are less interactive. It might mean they're less likely to scratch your itch for interaction, but that's not the same thing at all.

Modifié par In Exile, 16 novembre 2010 - 02:02 .

[ChickenDownUnder]

StingingVelvet wrote...

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

If you only read the title and ignore everything else I could see how you could be confused.

It was more the many paragraphs describing FV and pointing out all the ways DAII might be different and how that would affect sales and so on, but I can see how you could be confused as well.

If you are going to assume things about people, then I can certainly pretend to do so too.

But please, carry on. I like you now. It makes me want to give you a doggy biscuit.

As I just wrote, the premise is simple: F:NV added depth in a time when adding depth is considered bad.  It has been met with success, generally.  What does this mean for DA2 and Bioware's future?

None of that has anything to do with comparing the gameplay of the two titles, other than talking about how the genre differences (tactical RPG versus open world RPG) make adding depth a different thing.

"If x is an example of xx and y is an example of yy, what does x mean to y?" <-- is comparing x to y in order to get a meaning/answer.

Comparing is still comparing, doesn't matter to what degree or over what specific part and so on.

[Kileyan]

In Exile wrote...


I disagree. I think introducing stuff that doesn't relate to the main story introduces the Mass Effect problem: why would you waste time looking at totally non-plot critical content except for meta-game reasons? This is a big problem with any story-driven RPG. Basically, the only people that would actually go out and explore the world are explorers. Anything else is just nonsensical.


That just makes for an entirely different world, and a different design. Basically, I think at its core there is always a trade-off between the world and the story. You can't have a tight story while allowing exploration, unless you somehow make that exploration part of the story (and that becomes problematic in itself).

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you, that a tight story driven game can't have content that isn't part of the save the world quest. It dilutes nothing, and I am not even sure what you mean by exploring some old ruins and meta gaming. Meta gaming would be knowing before hand that this ruin is story specific, and this ruin is lollygagging. How does your Hawke decide that this cave he ran across is not important, but this other cave is critical to his story.


Anyways, your character isn't curious and mine is:) The only way this is unrealistic, is if the entire game sets the mood that time is a wasting, rush rush rush, do the quest now, no time to waste, the world is dying and all in Hawkes hands! Any exploration is criminal and risking the fate of the world! From what I have gathered the game isn't all about save the world now now now from a big terrible eviil. Your Hawke may do the bare minimum the game writers make him do on the main quest. My Hawke may have been a fan of old history and revel at the thought of finding old places along his 10 year path to power. Surely this whole 10 years, he has time to do other things than rush rush rush to the end of the game and save the world? Hell he doesn't even know he is anything special for likely a big part of the game, why should you decide he should be all serious and only do things critical to some quest he doesn't even know exists?

Maybe a little metagaming on your part?

Modifié par Kileyan, 16 novembre 2010 - 02:18 .

[Merced652]

Captain Iglo wrote...

Take away the ability of Fps/third person shooting mechanics from fallout 3/Vegas and you would have to erase about two-thirds of the sales of Fallout 3/ Vegas.

Oh the sweet sweet irony.

Take away the flahes of light and Ninja Gaiden gameplay of DA2 and you can erase 2/3rds of its potential sales. Man, this game is hard.

[Atakuma]

Merced652 wrote...

Captain Iglo wrote...

Take away the ability of Fps/third person shooting mechanics from fallout 3/Vegas and you would have to erase about two-thirds of the sales of Fallout 3/ Vegas.

Oh the sweet sweet irony.

Take away the flahes of light and Ninja Gaiden gameplay of DA2 and you can erase 2/3rds of its potential sales. Man, this game is hard.

that's not ironic at all, it is however grossly innaccurate.

Modifié par Atakuma, 16 novembre 2010 - 02:23 .

[In Exile]

Kileyan wrote...
I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you, that a tight story driven game can't have content that isn't part of the save the world quest. It dilutes nothing, and I am not even sure what you mean by exploring some old ruins and meta gaming. Meta gaming would be knowing before hand that this ruin is story specific, and this ruin is lollygagging. How does your Hawke decide that this cave he ran across is not important, but this other cave is critical to his story.

Let's take the story of Dragon Age Origins. Your job is to recruit four armies: dwarves, elves, humans and mages. You know where the mages, dwarves and humans are. You might not know where the elves are. So the Warden might have a reason to go looking for elves. But only in places where you might actually find elves, and any reasonable person would abandon searching any place where the preponderance of evidence shows that they aren't likely to find what they want.

I am saying it's meta-game specific because real people, with real jobs, don't go around ignoring their very time sensitive deadlines to go exploring. If I'm running a research study and need to go out and recruit 10 people, I don't stop for 3 days to investigate the slums of Chicago.

Anyways, your character isn't curious and mine is:) The only way this is unrealistic, is if the entire game sets the mood that time is a wasting, rush rush rush, do the quest now, no time to waste, the world is dying and all in Hawkes hands!

It has nothing to do with curiosity - it has to do with whether or not you are doing your job. Whatever task you have, you are either being lazy and putting it off, or doing it. I guess what you are asking for is a lazy character who is going to prioritize something other than the main task at hand, but I don't see the value in wasting zots to generate that sort of content.

Any exploration is criminal and risking the fate of the world! From what I have gathered the game isn't all about save the world now now now from a big terrible eviil. Your Hawke may do the bare minimum the game writers make him do on the main quest. My Hawke may have been a fan of old history and revel at the thought of finding old places along his 10 year path to power. Surely this whole 10 years, he has time to do other things than rush rush rush to the end of the game and save the world? Hell he doesn't even know he is anything special for likely a big part of the game, why should you decide he should be all serious and only do things critical to some quest he doesn't even know exists?

Well, the 10 years cover the important moments of Hawke' life. No one is going to tell you a fairly tell and include '' and Bob then sat down and drank beer and watched television, as with nothing important going on, these were his favourite hobbies; his favourite show happend to be Modern Family, a great comedy about..." If someone was making a film about my life, maybe they would incorporate the part where I ran for President of a group in college - that was a major moment, and I had to put in a week of very hard work. But I focused on the goal. I didn't go out to chill with my girlfriend or went and explored Montreal, because that wasn't what the task was about.

Maybe Hawke is a history buff, but during those 10 years, where there is something special going on, you're dealing with that special thing.

[mopotter]

StingingVelvet wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Does it have as much interaction as the BioWare Games?  I enjoyed Fallout 3, once I got broken steel,  it's fun, but I've become spoiled with the quality of interaction with BioWare games.  Yes, including the romance.  BioWare is a true story telling game with everything a good book would have.

What do you mean by "interaction"?  I would argue quite strongly that you interact with the world and with NPCs a lot more in a Fallout game than in any recent Bioware game.

A big part of it is the romance, the friendships and the teasing between my character and the NPC.   I cared about the characters  in most of the Bioware games but especially in the games from KOTOR on.   If someone dies, I tear up.    I've played FO3 for a few years and none of the NPC's made me care about them, except - father.  And I did like Fawkes a lot, but the only one I teared up for was dog.  

Yes, I could talk to anyone in FO3 and they would reply and some of them were interesting, but for me, there is just something about the characters in bioware games that pull me in, and some of that may be the voice actors, but mostly it's dialogue.   Allistair, Kaidan, Mission, Jolee, HK47, Ash, Carth, Bastilla, Garrus, Mordin even Jack,     They make me feel something.  

I enjoy playing Fallout 3, still play it but I generally wonder around by myself or with my dog or Fawke.  Now my husband likes Fallout 3 better than most of the BioWare games.  He liked DA but didn't care for ME.

Which is not a slight against Bioware mind you, it's just they create more defined worlds and characters you can't mess with and change as much.  In Fallout 3 you could change the radio DJ by killing the current one, for example.  In New Vegas you can decide who takes over the entire game world.  Nothing Bioware has done from KotOR on has offered anywhere near that level of interaction with the game world.

 

It could be the way I play also, I don't care that much about the world.  I never kill the dj or blow up the town even after playing for a few years.    I'm looking forward to playing New Vegas.

I'm assuming you just meant it has a lot more dialogue and cinematic story, but "interaction" is a very weird word to use for that.  "Guided" and "cinematic" are words I would use (again, not a slight on Bioware).

 I could have picked out the wrong word.  Casual communicating, talking and laughing with my crew or teammates.  I did look it up, :happy:I can't spell so I usually try to look words up before using them.  

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

You can make tons of choice in Dragon Age.

You decide who lives and dies (Connor, Isolde, Alistair, Loghain, various captured enemies, Sten, Zevran, Leliana, Wynne), You can be pure evil (have the werewolves kill the elves, corrupt the ashes of Andraste) or pure good (save the blood mages, sacrifice everything to try and save Connor, destroy the anvil of the void, save the elves and werewolves) or somewhere in between. You decide who wins (Alistair or Anora for Ferelden; Bhelen or Harrowmont for the dwarves; Zathrian, Witherfang or both for the elves).

If we're going to talk about potential effects on the world, you make a huge number of decisions in Dragon Age.

Sure, these decisions are very scripted, but they're really scripted in New Vegas too - they're just triggered to question completition, quest exclusion (which in NV includes plot NC dead yes or no) and faction score.

Seriously, we can play this game all day.

Well that's my point, it's scripted and controlled.  You can't say kill a shop owner and then his shop closes, for instance.

I think we're just arguing semantics, which is popular on the 'net, but at some point we should just acknowledge we agree on the basics and move back to topic.