608 réponses à ce sujet

[StingingVelvet]

mopotter wrote...

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.  

Interacting with characters more than the entire game world is what I think you meant, and that makes sense.  I agree that the interaction with characters in Bioware games is great and probably the best of any developer.

[ErichHartmann]

I'll regret saying this but my absolute favorite interaction with an NPC in New Vegas was "assuming the position" for a robot.

[Kileyan]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Perhaps what made you a good president is little things, seemingly unimportant thing that defined your character and ability to interact with other people. Maybe the important part of your story wasn't rushing to that week of putting up posters and shaking hands, but living your life, pursuing your passions.  I'd rather see that, that watch you hanging up posters and sending out mass emails to the campus.

Much like Hawke, what made him a warrior was this battle or that one. Who is to say this cave battle was any less important than another one. He can hardly shirk his duties and be lazy, if he doesn't even know what is important, and it is only defined by  you, because your quest log tells you what quest you need to do, to complete this era of time.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I just have to disagree that in 10 years of time, every minute of it must be spent doing some super important task. The point you are missing or just disagree with, is that Hawke himself doesn't know what part of his life is important or when working really hard during this 1 month timespan of his life was super important, and what specific task was super important.

There is no reason to think he is in a rush during many of his "important" moments. Those moments are fluid and happen when they happen. You might do it NOW, others might do them after a bit of drinking, womanizing or exploring and exhausting every quest they can. The end result is Hawke meets his defining moment of that time skip.

Again you are metagaming to extreme degrees. You know that Hawke must do something important in each timeshift. Hawke really doesn't know any of this and what will define him. He is going about his business, living his life and will eventually trigger the main quest, but likely he isn't put in a situation, where to him, he must constantly be rushing to fullfil a destiny he doesn't even know about.

[TiaraBlade]

GreenSoda wrote...

FNV's success will have zero impact on DA2 -obviously. (We are too far along in the dev. cycle).

...also one single title doesn't break the trend. You'd be surprised how many FNV players actually complained that it wasn't more like F3 and how F3's story telling was superior (I'm not even joking on that one).

There's also the point that -even though FNV is a success- F3 still was more successful and actually also got higher ratings across the board.

I personally found F3 to be superior. While the factions were interesting, I felt the quest to find my father and ultimately save the Wasteland more heartfelt and compelling than seeking revenge on Benny. When I did kill Benny, it felt very anticlimatic.

New Vegas felt as if society had rebuilt too much while the devestation of DC haunted me, especially the haunting music as I traveled the shattered remains of a once proud and vibrant city. I loved when FNV played the oid music when finishing some of the Brotherhood quests.

[Hulk Hsieh]

FO3 is like CoD4 of RPG and FNV benefited on sales from it like what WM2 did.

[slumlord722]

What does that even mean?

[maxernst]

TiaraBlade wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

FNV's success will have zero impact on DA2 -obviously. (We are too far along in the dev. cycle).

...also one single title doesn't break the trend. You'd be surprised how many FNV players actually complained that it wasn't more like F3 and how F3's story telling was superior (I'm not even joking on that one).

There's also the point that -even though FNV is a success- F3 still was more successful and actually also got higher ratings across the board.

I personally found F3 to be superior. While the factions were interesting, I felt the quest to find my father and ultimately save the Wasteland more heartfelt and compelling than seeking revenge on Benny. When I did kill Benny, it felt very anticlimatic.

New Vegas felt as if society had rebuilt too much while the devestation of DC haunted me, especially the haunting music as I traveled the shattered remains of a once proud and vibrant city. I loved when FNV played the oid music when finishing some of the Brotherhood quests.

FO3 was very atmospheric.  I remember having a discussion about atmosphere on this forum and saying that while I prefer Dragon Age as a game, Fallout 3 was far moodier than any game Bioware has ever made.  In some ways that great sense of emptiness and desolation works against it as a game. But the look and feel of the wasteland was the one thing from the old games that they got dead on--I remember being stunned by those first moments coming out of the vault.  Awesome.

I hope that FNV has returned to the more ambivalent view of the Brotherhood.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...

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.

But that doesn't affect the game at all. That just removes the store from the game. Maybe it gives you some nonsensical faction hit. That isn't reactivity - it's all scritped and controlled. Every single game is scripted and controlled - that's how games work.

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.

If you're willing to agree that Dragon Age is just as interactive as New Vegas, I'm happy to move on. Otherwise we are totally not debating semantics.

Kileyan wrote...
Perhaps what made you a good president is
little things, seemingly unimportant thing that defined your character
and ability to interact with other people. Maybe the important part of
your story wasn't rushing to that week of putting up posters and shaking
hands, but living your life, pursuing your passions.  I'd rather see
that, that watch you hanging up posters and sending out mass emails to
the campus.

Without giving up too much, it was absolutely an issue of running an effective two week campaign in the period alloted by the university. I don't want to disclose too much information about myself, and I acknowledge the example was poor because it was idiosyncratic.

Let's try another one. President Roosevelt during Pearl Harbour. Things Roosevelt did: run the United States. Things Roosevelt didn't do: explore the American midwest for Native American historical sites.

Much like Hawke, what made him a warrior was this
battle or that one. Who is to say this cave battle was any less
important than another one. He can hardly shirk his duties and be lazy,
if he doesn't even know what is important, and it is only defined by 
you, because your quest log tells you what quest you need to do, to
complete this era of time.

Okay, I think I've isolated the problem.

We are working under different assumptions of how the game will run. We don't know enough about DA2 to comment.

I would wager, though, DA2 would be like DA:O, i.e. Hawke would ''know'' in each scenario what the Warden knew in DA:O post-Ostagar: there is some major time sensitive task with clear objectives that needs to get done.

I see the point you are trying to
make, but I just have to disagree that in 10 years of time, every minute
of it must be spent doing some super important task. The point you are
missing or just disagree with, is that Hawke himself doesn't know what
part of his life is important or when working really hard during this 1
month timespan of his life was super important, and what specific task
was super important.

Hawke doesn't know what would end up happening, but remember, the game is essentially a flashback. The whole story is being told to us by at least one narrator. I would say more, but I have been working hard to avoid spoilers.

Still, we aren't Hawke as much as we are, in the sense that we are Hawke in that dramatic moment that defines why Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall, but we aren't Hawke when he goes shopping for bagels on Tuesday.

There is no reason to think he is in a rush
during many of his "important" moments. Those moments are fluid and
happen when they happen. You might do it NOW, others might do them after
a bit of drinking, womanizing or exploring and exhausting every quest
they can. The end result is Hawke meets his defining moment of that time
skip.

I'm going to have to object in principle that Hawke could achieve anything if he goes whoring, drinking or fooling around. This is just not something that can lead to success in reality.

Again you are metagaming to extreme degrees. You know
that Hawke must do something important in each timeshift. Hawke really
doesn't know any of this and what will define him. He is going about his
business, living his life and will eventually trigger the main quest,
but likely he isn't put in a situation, where to him, he must constantly
be rushing to fullfil a destiny he doesn't even know about.

The problem is an assumption. You're assuming we're taking control of Hawke at some point where the goal isn't already readily apparent. But there is no reason to assume that, and it would be a waste of resources for Bioware to do it.

[Vincentdante]

@thread



Absolutley nothing, there two completley different types of RPGs.

[Kileyan]

In Exile wrote...

[

Let's try another one. President Roosevelt during Pearl Harbour. Things Roosevelt did: run the United States. Things Roosevelt didn't do: explore the American midwest for Native American historical sites.

But Hawke isn't the President of Kirkwall at every moment.

A lot of what defined Teddy was his exporation, hunting, safaris and lifestyle before he became President. His every moment in life wasn't spent thinking about how he would handle Pearl Harbor. He will long be remembered not just for that moment in time, but for being a great outdoorsmen, and adventurer. He did things in his life that just happened to make him good for the position. He didn't wake up everyday, thinking I must do X, and I must do X now, because I'm in a hurry, and 22 years from now, I'm gonna have to deal with Pearl Harbor.

Teddy done a lot of playing, exploring, and living out grown mens fantasies in his life. It made him what he was.

Your assumption is that just because Hawke knows of some goal, that it is the only thing he can think about in a time skip moment.  He somehow has some sense of history, that he must rush to do this now, because it defines him.

I think it is just a moment in time where our Hawkes can pursue other goals, side quests, and the story moves on when Hawke stumbled across his defining moment.

I can't help it, it still seems like your Hawke comes with a Prima guide game hints book in his backpack. He has no life outside of some end game he shouldn't know about.

[mopotter]

slumlord722 wrote...

What does that even mean?

this?  FO3 is like CoD4 of RPG and FNV benefited on sales from it like what WM2 did.

 "Fall Out 3 is like Call of Duty 4 of RPG and Fallout New vegas  benefited on sales from it like what ... did" and I give up.  My google comes up with call of duty modern warfare2  but that should be MW not WM.  

too much time on my hands and I don't text.  

[Hollingdale]

Kileyan wrote...

In Exile wrote...

[

Let's try another one. President Roosevelt during Pearl Harbour. Things Roosevelt did: run the United States. Things Roosevelt didn't do: explore the American midwest for Native American historical sites.

But Hawke isn't the President of Kirkwall at every moment.

A lot of what defined Teddy was his exporation, hunting, safaris and lifestyle before he became President. His every moment in life wasn't spent thinking about how he would handle Pearl Harbor. He will long be remembered not just for that moment in time, but for being a great outdoorsmen, and adventurer. He did things in his life that just happened to make him good for the position. He didn't wake up everyday, thinking I must do X, and I must do X now, because I'm in a hurry, and 22 years from now, I'm gonna have to deal with Pearl Harbor.

Teddy done a lot of playing, exploring, and living out grown mens fantasies in his life. It made him what he was.

Your assumption is that just because Hawke knows of some goal, that it is the only thing he can think about in a time skip moment.  He somehow has some sense of history, that he must rush to do this now, because it defines him.

I think it is just a moment in time where our Hawkes can pursue other goals, side quests, and the story moves on when Hawke stumbled across his defining moment.

I can't help it, it still seems like your Hawke comes with a Prima guide game hints book in his backpack. He has no life outside of some end game he shouldn't know about.

Dude, linear stories as a rule have clear goals. I really don't think (nor want for that matter) Bioware will sacrifice good storytelling for trivial exploration and simple reactions to pointless actions.

In fact there would be a harsch contrast between the realistic interactions of the characters in the story and the simplified interactions between the main characters and random npc's. Especially with Hawke being having a voice which will express his personality. He can't go from a dramatic scene to just hanging out with more or less random npc's without being an inconsistent weirdo.

[AlanC9]

Kileyan wrote... because I'm in a hurry, and 22 years from now, I'm gonna have to deal with Pearl Harbor.

You sure you haven't mixed up your Roosevelts?

[KLUME777]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I'll regret saying this but my absolute favorite interaction with an NPC in New Vegas was "assuming the position" for a robot.

LOL i laughed so hard when i did that. Sex-bots.......Bioware, i want one in ME3.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

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.

But that doesn't affect the game at all. That just removes the store from the game.

You sort of defeated your own answer there.

Look, you see "effecting the game" as a companion talking about what you did.  That's fine, that's your opinion.  I have a much larger view on what can effect a game, I look at the whole game world and my character's actions.  I slaughtered a shope owner, took his stuff, then his shop was forever lost.  That's a big thing for me, whether Obsidian wrote a long cinematic narrative around it or not, and those moments can happen all the time and anytime you want in New Vegas.

Anyway, I'm done debating this, it's silly.

[Kileyan]

Hollingdale wrote...


Dude, linear stories as a rule have clear goals. I really don't think (nor want for that matter) Bioware will sacrifice good storytelling for trivial exploration and simple reactions to pointless actions.

In fact there would be a harsch contrast between the realistic interactions of the characters in the story and the simplified interactions between the main characters and random npc's. Especially with Hawke being having a voice which will express his personality. He can't go from a dramatic scene to just hanging out with more or less random npc's without being an inconsistent weirdo.

Dude, linear stories always have clear goals. There is no chance that we will play this game and decide to run off to the sea and become Pirate Hawke.

The fact that Hawke is voiced doesn't mean nothing can be done outside the main quest. He certainly can go from a dramatic scene, to another scene. I can't even fathom what you mean, is Hawke always hyped up and dramatic throughout his entire life? Is he always screaming and angry or something? Why can't he talk to other npcs. Do you picture this game being just one angry dramatic scene?

People have important things they need to accomplish all the time. It would be weirder if someone couldn't talk to regular people, because they were always hyped up, dramatic and angry, yelling about their destiny. A man who couldn't talk to random npcs without being in super hype drama crazy mode, would be much less realistic and weirdo than your example of Hawke.

Dude

[StingingVelvet]

TiaraBlade wrote...

I personally found F3 to be superior. While the factions were interesting, I felt the quest to find my father and ultimately save the Wasteland more heartfelt and compelling than seeking revenge on Benny. When I did kill Benny, it felt very anticlimatic.

I find it hard to even compare FO3 and FO:NV on a story level honestly because FO3's writing was so much worse.  It's like comparing Call of Duty to The Hurt Locker for me, there is no comparison.

Finding one's father is a more emotional story I grant you, but New Vegas had a lot more going on than just killing Benny, as you put it.  It has a ton of story conent on democracies versus what might be a truer form of freedom, and a bigger and more important climax.  And, as I said, it was written about 10 times better.

In any case I need to stop responding to off-topic posts or this thread is going to veer way far away from the subject at hand.

[Kileyan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kileyan wrote... because I'm in a hurry, and 22 years from now, I'm gonna have to deal with Pearl Harbor.

You sure you haven't mixed up your Roosevelts?

Hehe yeh *turns red*.

Anyway point holds true, people don't live their life for some moment in the future they don't know about. Hawke won't be concentrating with laser focus in certain events because we know they are important. He's just living his life. I think it is more of a metagaming thing to think you have to race to complete each important scene, as someone who milks each scene for all xps and quests.

Hawke doesn't know its important, and no rule says whether that event in his life was important because he completed it in 2 hours or 12 hours. All that is important is it happens.

Modifié par Kileyan, 16 novembre 2010 - 05:45 .

[Meltemph]

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

No, they pretty much did not.

When they took on this job they decided "hey, let's ADD some depth and complexity to certain areas." 

I don't see anything that added any "depth", added features != complexity.


 

The factions make decisions matter, as pleasing often means losing gameplay oppotunities with the other.  You can actually fail quests, for instance.

You mean like Oblivion?  Also, there were very few quests you were actually locked out of, until a certain point. Also, you could fail quests in FO3 as well.

 

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.

This is not a new system by any means and even FPS have used similar systems before, just not in the exact same fashion.  This was such a incredibly subtle and simple/minor change and your average person who bought the game does not have to worry about this.  I agree it is a "neat" added feature, but I don't think it added any real "depth" or "complexity" since the way you upgrade your gear stays relatively the same and it only really comes into play with very powerful creatures, but by the time you are at the proper level/gear to fight them, you should not have to even think of looking at your DT.

The only reason I liked DT, is it added a sense of realism, but I would not consider that complexity, just more of a rule change.  However, Vats is still so inferior to just "run and gunning" that DT played a very small part, imo.

The hardcore mode adds roleplaying elements like eating, drinking and sleeping, plus companion permanent death.

I guess I could understand how, to some, this could add complexity, but I did not personally find it adding anything close to "complex" and the depth it added, was quite shallow and more annoying then good to me(and very easy, in fact to easy, to deal with, imo).

 

The stat and perk systems were redesigned to keep a player from being a master of everything.

The stats and perks system is one of the most simplistic and easy to understand "feat" system created.  And was present in FO3.  It has always been part of its "complexity".

 I guess, in some way you could argue that all these new "features" added some form of "depth or complexity" but the additions were so shallow, imo, that to think it added any significant change to the game, is just trying to make "mountains out of molehills" either that, or it takes very little for you to be impressed by added complexity.

Modifié par Meltemph, 16 novembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[StingingVelvet]

Meltemph wrote...

I guess, in some way you could argue that all these new "features" added some form of "depth or complexity" but the additions were so shallow, imo, that to think it added any significant change to the game, is just trying to make "mountains out of molehills" either that, or it takes very little for you to be impressed by added complexity.

It significantly changed the game for ME.  For most people on RPG forums I talk to.  Maybe not for you, I guess opinions vary.  In Oblivion though you could head the Knights of the Nine and the Dark Brotherhood both with no consequences, which was beyond stupid.  In Fallout: New Vegas your actions matter, and dammit, that's progress.

[Meltemph]

In Fallout: New Vegas your actions matter, and dammit, that's progress.

Barely, you could go near all the way with most of the quests on all 3 sides before you were cutoff.



I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved NV, but that was more because its story was a lot more like the old FO series. But in terms of complexity... It is not even as complex as Oblivion.



Also, personally, I don't even know how one could argue that companies are afraid of complexity... I mean, when you have a game like WoW as examples of what consumers can handle, which is no less complex then any CRPG out there and WoW is considered the softcore of MMO's, I don't see how anyone could infer that "complexity" with the scale you are talking about, could affect anything.

[Hollingdale]

Kileyan wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...


Dude, linear stories as a rule have clear goals. I really don't think (nor want for that matter) Bioware will sacrifice good storytelling for trivial exploration and simple reactions to pointless actions.

In fact there would be a harsch contrast between the realistic interactions of the characters in the story and the simplified interactions between the main characters and random npc's. Especially with Hawke being having a voice which will express his personality. He can't go from a dramatic scene to just hanging out with more or less random npc's without being an inconsistent weirdo.

Dude, linear stories always have clear goals. There is no chance that we will play this game and decide to run off to the sea and become Pirate Hawke.

The fact that Hawke is voiced doesn't mean nothing can be done outside the main quest. He certainly can go from a dramatic scene, to another scene. I can't even fathom what you mean, is Hawke always hyped up and dramatic throughout his entire life? Is he always screaming and angry or something? Why can't he talk to other npcs. Do you picture this game being just one angry dramatic scene?

People have important things they need to accomplish all the time. It would be weirder if someone couldn't talk to regular people, because they were always hyped up, dramatic and angry, yelling about their destiny. A man who couldn't talk to random npcs without being in super hype drama crazy mode, would be much less realistic and weirdo than your example of Hawke.

Dude

Dawg,  In freeroamers like New Vegas, where the PC is typically silent, the player is free to fill a blank with whatever he/she wants to, but  in linear rpg's where the PC is voiced  there is also a presupposed personality for that PC since it's impossible to voice a blank there is not so much for the player him/herself to fill in, this allready existing personality will likely clash with the kind of excessive freeroaming you want to do. This is especially true for Bioware who tend to enjoy dramatic movielike scenes and I therefore find it extremely unlikely that they would even consider wasting resources on freeroaming elements. The game is just not built for it.

Also please stop trying to make a case about yours or mine Hawke, they are essentially the same although they may vary in good and evil.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 16 novembre 2010 - 06:19 .

[lazuli]

Khayness wrote...

Nothing for BioWare. Obsidian is superior in game mechanics, BioWare excels in storytelling.

Did you play NWN2?

[Kileyan]

Hollingdale wrote...


Dawg,  In freeroamers like New Vegas, ,

this allready existing personality will likely clash with the kind of excessive freeroaming you want to do.

Also please stop trying to make a case about yours or mine Hawke, they are essentially the same although they may vary in good and evil.

The conversation you jumped into was never about an open world free roam game or turning DA into that. It was about including a few random encounters or ruins within the game. Read back a bit. I even talked about how their overland map made it impossible to do a free roam game.

Seems you just jumped into a conversation and assumed it was about "wahhh this game isn't Fallout".

Your mistake. I don't want that in this game, I just want more random encounters and a few lost ruins or something in between pivotal game locations.

My Hawke is an explorer, if you find it silly to explore anything but the main quest, then you Hawke is not my Hawke. So no, I won't stop saying my Hawke is different than your Hawke.

Anyways enough of the passive agressive stuff. I think we agree this is a linear story driven game and I don't want to change that. We just disagree on whether a few places of exploration that aren't main quest related would destroy the game.

Modifié par Kileyan, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:02 .

[Bryy_Miller]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I guess, in some way you could argue that all these new "features" added some form of "depth or complexity" but the additions were so shallow, imo, that to think it added any significant change to the game, is just trying to make "mountains out of molehills" either that, or it takes very little for you to be impressed by added complexity.

It significantly changed the game for ME.  For most people on RPG forums I talk to.  Maybe not for you, I guess opinions vary.  In Oblivion though you could head the Knights of the Nine and the Dark Brotherhood both with no consequences, which was beyond stupid.  In Fallout: New Vegas your actions matter, and dammit, that's progress.

Progress for who? Obsidian, or RPGs as a whole? Because if you're stating the latter, that's a pretty huge (and rather needlessly aggressive) statement to be making.