608 réponses à ce sujet

[Kileyan]

lazuli wrote...

Khayness wrote...

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

Did you play NWN2?

I think he has is backward. Bioware created the mechanics and game engines and Obsidian does the great(but buggy) stories.

To be fair I like both companies a lot, not taking sides:)

[Bryy_Miller]

And they are buggy stories. If the quests don't take two hours to verify that you completed them, they don't let you do others at all. It'll give you all of the quest details, but then stuff won't be where it's supposed to be.

BioWare also does a much better job of not springing new information on you that could have helped in your decisions after you completed the quest. I can't tell you how many times I would do a main quest, only to have someone tell me post-mordem that I made the wrong play because of this and this.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 16 novembre 2010 - 07:27 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

It will take some time for new IPs like DA and ME to catch up with classic franchise like TES or FO.
If Bioware make a BG game now, it might surpass the sales of the FO games. However, DA and ME are just not old/famous enough.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 16 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Kail Ashton]

like comparing apples & oranges, the systems in new vegas wouldn't work in dragon age for more reasons then i care to list, i'd sugest perspective & knowing the subject matter when making comparisons or simply derp de derp much?

[Orizont]

I don’t think the improvements, if you believe them to be such, that FNV brings over FO3 will have any influence over DA2; even if the devs would somehow have a design revelation after playing NV it’s way to late in development to matter. It might impact the public and critical reception DA2 will receive in the spring but even that is debatable, because if comparisons are to be made than DA2 will most likely be measured up against DAO. And it will be judged firstly on its overall quality not necessarily on added or removed complexity from the franchise.



I’m about 60 hours into FNV and so far I love it to bits, but that’s mostly because I find it a great game by itself. While the hardcore mode and the reputation system are very enjoyable and a great plus over FO3, it was the greater world consistency, the improved quest design, the better told story, the much better written dialogue and the dept that the characters, the companions in particular, have over their FO3 counterparts, these are the things that endeared the game to me. (And all the nods towards FO1 & 2 that made me smile, but I’m not going to mention this.) Considering the scarcity of information we have so far, DA2 might end up improving on its predecessor in much the same way.



I can’t help but be a bit apprehensive at some of the changes brought forth so far, the fixed outfits and the faster, flashier combat system in particular which seems to me like the illegitimate child of Origins and Jade Empire. With the exception of overlong dungeons like the deep roads and the fade bit at the mage circle, I found the combat in Origins very satisfying. On the other side I remember Jade Empire for its engaging story, refreshing setting and dull, repetitive combat that I had to endure to reach the next conversation/plot point. Despite the fact that it was very responsive. And very spectacular… I hope it’s just my pessimistic imagination that keeps conjuring up these comparisons.



I can’t comment on Fable 3 since I’ve played just the first one and I can’t really imagine how exactly that game could have been streamlined any more. Just the same, Gothic 4 was not received badly due to lack of complexity compared to previous titles (or not only?), but because it’s pretty much a ****ty game. I’m reasonably sure that will not be the case with DA2. Even if every negative prediction concerning it turns out to be true, I will consider DA2 to be worth at least one playthrough to check out the story, the characters and the dialogues. The writing team that dished out DAO could not fail so badly to not deserve at least that.

[Funker Shepard]

So is the premise in the OP that "adding things = good", "removing things = bad", no matter what the starting point is? I REALLY hope I'm reading that wrong!

[goatman42]

Does the OP happen to listen to the giant bombcast? Because they had this exact discussion a couple of podcasts ago.

Modifié par goatman42, 16 novembre 2010 - 12:51 .

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
You sort of defeated your own answer there.

No, I'm trying to get you to see how silly your parallel is. You can't come up with an arbitrary standard of interactivity only on the basis that you like it more, then argue that DA2 is less complex because of it and wonder what real complexity might mean for the video-game public.

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.

Do you see all the bold portions? It's just an idiosyncratic standard. You can't expect us to come in and buy it; more to the point, you ran right back into this argument a page ago. Saying ''it's off-topic'' because you don't like where the direction is heading isn't a response.

[Mordaedil]

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.

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.

Fallout 3 was about running around the wastelands, finding a surrogate video game father that the game tells you constantly that is your father and assisst him in killing himself. Then watch as he kills himself. Then chose whether to poison everyone or save everyone. Also, if you don't commit suicide like your heroic father at the end, you are a bad person and the game punishes you for it.

You didn't have to kill Benny. There was an option to save Benny. It was kinda against all odds, but you had a choice in his fate and you reasons for tracking him down were open to you.

New Vegas was less damaged because Mr. House had an anti-nuke defense system in place and took down 49 out of 60 nukes or something like that.

As for interactivity in New Vegas, at a certain point in the game, the factions you chose to not help will no longer like you and will actively work against you to support their own agendas. You'll be hunted by assassins from the sides you do not support, refused help, you'll be shot on sight or when asking for work, denied because you are working for the X faction. Being at bad stance with a faction means any of those people are now your enemies and they become hostile to you. Critical plot NPC's can be killed and this has consequences and the NPC's react to that this critical plot NPC is now missing. Some will move on to take over their jobs if they can or you may be denied services.

Also, arguing that ones definition of a term such as 'interactivity' is just silly. It's a word, it's an adjective with a single meaning, personal opinions on the term don't mean a thing.

If you honestly think DAO has more interactivity than Fallout: New Vegas, then you haven't played enough of New Vegas to have an opinion worth a damn. After 70 hours, I can stare the fact in the eye and say "yeah. This game offers more than DAO did."

[Itkovian]

Absolutely nothing.

Aside from FONV being a different sub-genre of RPG than Bioware's games (sandbox), the fact of the matter is that FONV brought back to Fallout elements that were lacking from FO3: better roleplaying, better storytelling, and better writing in general.

All of these are elements Bioware has never lacked, and indeed has "championed" beyond most other game studios.

Beyond those, FONV's other qualities derive from its sandbox nature, which is neither here nor there, as Bioware does not do sandbox games. By default their games will be more restrictive, but they do better storytelling in exchange.

Itkovian

[Grand_Commander13]

Itkovian wrote...

All of these are elements Bioware has never lacked, and indeed has "championed" beyond most other game studios.

Bioware has never been particularly good at making character stats matter.  Sure, there are a couple Cunning checks in Dragon Age, and sure there's the Coercion skill, but it's so shallow.  "Take this skill if you want to be good in conversations; we'll make it easy for you by making only one other skill good for player characters and making it combat-related."

I'd love to see some depth to the skill system in DA2, and see it used like crazy in DA2.

[DanteK]

I think it will have no impact what so ever, because the new fallout games are not RPG's they aree FPS games, that have a few rpg elements in them and are not marketed towards rpg players, they are marketed towards people who play fps games. With Dragon age games they are action RPG games and are directed to the rpg and action playing gamers.



But in the end storylines and characters are always the most important part of a game, if it wasn't then games like Heavy Rain wouldn't be best sellers and praised for how amazing they are. Also when it comes to story BioWare always does a great job, if not I wouldn't have played through origins 4 times in total, that and was nice I could have my character be gay.

[Grand_Commander13]

Dude, Fallout: New Vegas has stronger roleplaying elements than Dragon Age. Dragon Age has epicness of story, but the only other thing it can do to try to claim superior roleplaying elements is dissociation of player skill from combat. That's kind of a weak claim when character skill in New Vegas applies to so many more places in the game than Dragon Age.

[sanadawarrior]

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.

It means nothing for Dragon Age 2 because these very same critics priased the streamlining of Mass Effect 2. They will probably take away the thought of "Streamlining seems to work for our story driven games but perhaps not for these open world games."

[Marionetten]

Meltemph wrote...

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

If you play your cards carefully and avoid angering one faction by working with the other openly. But that in itself is a choice which does matter. New Vegas actually rewards you for doing things covertly. You can be a conman who skillfully plays all the sides. You can be a savage who clubs everyone and everything to death. You can be loyal to the NCR. You can pretend to be loyal to the NCR. You can be loyal to the Legion. You can pretend to the be loyal to the Legion. You can be loyal to House. You can pretend to be loyal to House. The list goes on and on. The fact that it allows you to play a character like this is just icing on the cake.

As far as I'm concerned this allows me to mold my protagonist far more than Dragon Age: Origins ever did. I was stuck being the Grey Warden no matter what I did. Awakening even had the gall to assume that my character wanted to become the Grey Warden Commander. This pissed me off as I had always played my character as someone who only joined the Wardens in order to escape the Circle Tower. New Vegas doesn't make any of these assumptions and I'm damn grateful for it.

Modifié par Marionetten, 16 novembre 2010 - 04:21 .

[Mubar]

Every game that has the obsidian name is full of bugs and outright FUBAR just look at Alpha Protocol.They either cut stuff from the end to meet deadline or they just dont do QA tests>





Prey to the Gods of Gaming that EA doesnt hire City Interactive for game

[Bryy_Miller]

Marionetten wrote...

As far as I'm concerned this allows me to mold my protagonist far more than Dragon Age: Origins ever did. I was stuck being the Grey Warden no matter what I did. Awakening even had the gall to assume that my character wanted to become the Grey Warden Commander. This pissed me off as I had always played my character as someone who only joined the Wardens in order to escape the Circle Tower. New Vegas doesn't make any of these assumptions and I'm damn grateful for it.

Having a set plot is not an "assumption". The plot of New Vegas was to find it a new ruler, which you do. So you played it as someone who did it to escape the tower, that's great. It's not different from what The Courier does. 

Plot = / = Story

[In Exile]

Mordaedil wrote...
As for interactivity in New Vegas, at a certain point in the game, the factions you chose to not help will no longer like you and will actively work against you to support their own agendas. You'll be hunted by assassins from the sides you do not support, refused help, you'll be shot on sight or when asking for work, denied because you are working for the X faction. Being at bad stance with a faction means any of those people are now your enemies and they become hostile to you. Critical plot NPC's can be killed and this has consequences and the NPC's react to that this critical plot NPC is now missing. Some will move on to take over their jobs if they can or you may be denied services.

That's all just scripted exclusivity. Dragon Age does the same thing - kill the mages, you can't use them to save Connor. Exploit Wade to create armour, his store is locked out. Have the Werewolves attack the Dalish, that area is cut off. Exclusive content is not a new design.

Everything in New Vegas is just tied to your faction score and main plot progression, and things trigger from there.

Here is what New Vegas does that Bioware is not good at: multiple triggers for the same event.

In New Vegas, you can antagonize the Legion or NCR in a huge number of ways. They always amount to the same thing, but the option to do it is there. 

This is where our breakdown is. You see 17 ways to get the same scripted outcome, and you say: interactive and responsive. I say: lacking because of the lack of development of the scripted response. 

Also, arguing that ones definition of a term such as 'interactivity' is just silly. It's a word, it's an adjective with a single meaning, personal opinions on the term don't mean a thing.

It has a very clear meaning, but what satisfies that meaning is very much up for debate. Chest thump all you like.

Put another way: chair has a very specific meaning. Now think about all the things that we could debate about whether or not they'd be included as chair. Or hell, art.

If you honestly think DAO has more interactivity than Fallout: New Vegas, then you haven't played enough of New Vegas to have an opinion worth a damn. After 70 hours, I can stare the fact in the eye and say "yeah. This game offers more than DAO did."

Just like how NWN had a great SP campaign that didn't get reduced at all by MP? Don't trot out your opinion like it ends the debate, especially after just denounce people you think do that.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
As far as I'm concerned this allows me to mold my protagonist far more than Dragon Age: Origins ever did. I was stuck being the Grey Warden no matter what I did. Awakening even had the gall to assume that my character wanted to become the Grey Warden Commander. This pissed me off as I had always played my character as someone who only joined the Wardens in order to escape the Circle Tower. New Vegas doesn't make any of these assumptions and I'm damn grateful for it.

New Vegas allows my character to be a transgered shapeshifting alien from the plane Zablroxx 223 working to eliminate human resistance to allow for the Great Harvest that will come when the kidneys of all humans will be harvested for their aphrodesiac content and the entire planet will be turn into an amusement park.

There is literally nothing in New Vegas that prevents you from doing this. You might think this is some great victory of role-playing. To me, any game that allows me to get away with such absolutely insane scenarios is clearly a dead and sterile world.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
It's all illusion of choice, but it's all about which illusion of choice you like more.

How is it an illusion?

I quite hate when people say this "illusion of choice" crap.

You have choice.  Because your choice is between two things that have predetermined results makes it no less a choice.

If I choose between a red sweater and a blue sweater, the end result is no surprise when putting on the blue sweater I look like a guy wearing a blue sweater.  The choice isn't about not knowing the results.

If you are offered a tuna sandwich or a chicken salad sandwich, picking the tuna isn't an illusion of choice just because the sandwich was already made.

If you can pick between two or more options, options that are different, then you have a choice.

Illusion of choice is when no matter what you pick you are always going to get a set thing.  Like choosing between two doors with the implication that you are picking which room you want to go into, but both doors lead into the same room.  Or being asked "Do you want meal A, B, or C" and no matter what letter you choose it's going to be lasagna.

Everyone needs to stop being so sloppy with their language.

There's no illusion while what you pick ends up giving different results.

The only other thing I can comprehend of people meaning is that, whether you romance Ashley or Liara, Sovereign will attack the Citadel - meaning the romance choice has no affect on the big story moment.

To which I go back to my sweater choice -

"But whether you wore the red or blue sweater, you still had to go to work today!"

See, the choice of sweater wasn't about going to work - so it's not an illusion.
In the same vein, the romance choice isn't about ME's end story, so it's not an illusion.


I cannot be more exact that this -

Choice in a game is not an illusion merely because the game designers precreated the results of your choice.
The choice has to have no affect on the outcome for it to be an illusion.

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 novembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[AlanC9]

I think "illusion of choice" is being used here to mean "illusion of meaningful choice." I'm with Merin -- these are different things and we shouldn't confuse them.



Of course, "meaningful" is awfully imprecise too.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

How is it an illusion?

I quite hate when people say this "illusion of choice" crap.

You have choice.  Because your choice is between two things that have predetermined results makes it no less a choice.

This is not what illusion of choice is about. Illusion of choice is about the mispresentation of choice regearding limited outcomes.

You have an illusion of choice when the outcome is binary but you end up believing, for whatever reason, the choice isn't.

If I choose between a red sweater and a blue sweater, the end result is no surprise when putting on the blue sweater I look like a guy wearing a blue sweater.  The choice isn't about not knowing the results.

If you are offered a tuna sandwich or a chicken salad sandwich, picking the tuna isn't an illusion of choice just because the sandwich was already made.

If you can pick between two or more options, options that are different, then you have a choice.

Yes, but an RPer will for whatever reason add motives and behaviour into the equation, and then say this expands the number of choices.

So let's go back to your scenario: you can either have the red or blue sweater.

New Vegas says: you can buy the sweater tuesday morning, or tuesday night; you can buy it because you like the colour, or hate the colour of the other one; you can get it because there were no pants available, or because you have all available pants.

Illusion of choice, in other words, is all about having a set binary (or so) outcome that never acknowledges these "extra" reasons, but somehow comes across as making people feel like these reasons matter, and somehow the choice isn't binary.

Illusion of choice is when no matter what you pick you are always going to get a set thing.  Like choosing between two doors with the implication that you are picking which room you want to go into, but both doors lead into the same room.  Or being asked "Do you want meal A, B, or C" and no matter what letter you choose it's going to be lasagna.

No, it doesn't have to mean this at all.

Here is where you're confused: you think it has to be irrelevance leading to one outcome, but it doesn't have to be.

Let's say we have 10 doors: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J. They actually all lead only to 1 of 2 exists. 5 lead to exit 1. 5 lead to exit 2.

This is illusion of choice, but you have a binary choice.

Everyone needs to stop being so sloppy with their language.

There's no illusion while what you pick ends up giving different results.

I'm very judicious with terms. As I showed above, New Vegas - that's illusion of choice.

I cannot be more exact that this -

Choice in a game is not an illusion merely because the game designers precreated the results of your choice.
The choice has to have no affect on the outcome for it to be an illusion.

Right. And it doesn't. Whether or not you kill the legion because you want to steal their shoes, hate them philosophically, think there is benefit in working with the NCR, whatever, the end result, pratically, is a very narrow range of set stripted responses.

In the same way, with Conor, you have three choices: Kill Connor, Kill Isolde, Save both. That's it. You can come up with half-a-hundred motives, but the end result is the same.

This is "illusion" of choice. When you have a binary outcome that is build in such a way as to make you think it is more than that.

[AlanC9]

sanadawarrior wrote...
It means nothing for Dragon Age 2 because these very same critics priased the streamlining of Mass Effect 2. They will probably take away the thought of "Streamlining seems to work for our story driven games but perhaps not for these open world games."

Hmm... there might be something to that. It's fairly obvious by now that Bio games are primarily story delivery systems. Do complex mechanics help with this, or interfere with it? Or are they just a waste of dev time?

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...

This is "illusion" of choice. When you have a binary outcome that is build in such a way as to make you think it is more than that.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.  What exactly is the point you are trying to make?  That every game ever made is only about presentation of illusions of choice?  That no game ever made has ever offered real choice?

[Bryy_Miller]

Alan and Merin are right in this case. Even though I agree with your fundamental idea that New Vegas offers less actual reactive quests, there comes a point where you're less arguing about choice in video games and more arguing about the concept of choice in video games.