608 réponses à ce sujet

[Vylan Antagonist]

Sidney wrote...

Good writing? Really? FNV has nada on the writing front unless it suddenly gets a LOT better than what I've seen so far.
FNV, like FO3 or Oblivion or Morrowwind before it shows the the problem of the open world system. An initial rush of exhilaration as you think, man this world his huge, then a grinding realization that while there are 500 places to explore at least 350 of them are the same old same old...

I think you may be conflating it with FO3 too quickly. Give it time and you should find that, in spite of the cosmetic similarity to its predecessor, those various areas are much more fleshed out. Explore Vault 11. Finish the quest Return To Sender. There's plenty of good writing to be found, along with agonizing moral dilemmas.

My only real regret, 100 hours in, is that the Legion was just a little TOO evil. I can see the NCR's faults, particularly after I'd met Moore. I certainly can see the problems with House. But the Legion is just a little too bleak to reason my way into supporting unless I'm playing an all-out wretch. Maybe if they'd just done away with the rampant misogyny I could have bought into the peerless stability they offered, with the right morally gray character. But currently? I'll back the legion when I'm playing a cannibalistic moron.

[KethWolfheart]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Good writing? Really? FNV has nada on the writing front unless it suddenly gets a LOT better than what I've seen so far.
FNV, like FO3 or Oblivion or Morrowwind before it shows the the problem of the open world system. An initial rush of exhilaration as you think, man this world his huge, then a grinding realization that while there are 500 places to explore at least 350 of them are the same old same old...

I think you may be conflating it with FO3 too quickly. Give it time and you should find that, in spite of the cosmetic similarity to its predecessor, those various areas are much more fleshed out. Explore Vault 11. Finish the quest Return To Sender. There's plenty of good writing to be found, along with agonizing moral dilemmas.

My only real regret, 100 hours in, is that the Legion was just a little TOO evil. I can see the NCR's faults, particularly after I'd met Moore. I certainly can see the problems with House. But the Legion is just a little too bleak to reason my way into supporting unless I'm playing an all-out wretch. Maybe if they'd just done away with the rampant misogyny I could have bought into the peerless stability they offered, with the right morally gray character. But currently? I'll back the legion when I'm playing a cannibalistic moron.

I had the same problem with the legion.  As for Sidney .. sounds like these style games (sandbox/exploring) are not for you.  Thats fine everyone has different taste.  I think the writing was great though.  I played over 90 hours and have started a second character.  I am familiar with the game having played it in some depth ... and my own experience tells me it is great writing.  Then again I did not like either of the ME games and millions of people did ... it is all a matter of taste in what style of games people like.  It isn't on par with DAO as far as companions of course, but still an excellent game.

Modifié par KethWolfheart, 20 novembre 2010 - 07:47 .

[Sidney]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

I think you may be conflating it with FO3 too quickly. Give it time and you should find that, in spite of the cosmetic similarity to its predecessor, those various areas are much more fleshed out. Explore Vault 11. Finish the quest Return To Sender. There's plenty of good writing to be found, along with agonizing moral dilemmas.

Haven't done RTS but Vault 11 was just headscratchingly bad. In the end, there are pockets of attempted writing but the vast wasteland is a vast empty land with vendor trash.

There's just no connection, for me, to my character in the Bethesda/son-of-Bethesa games. This isn't new in Fallout, I'd say the same things about all of them going back to the Black Isle days. Same thing in Oblivion or Morrowind as well. I'm not playing a character, I'm participating in a setting and my interesting holds up just as long as that interest holds up. Put another way, I'm sad that DA2 doesn't have my warden because I care about that character. FNV doesn't carry over my character from FO3 and I do not care in the least.

What disappoints me so much is that other than electricity New Vegas looks and feels exactly like the DC Wasteland and I was hoping they'd do a lot more with the setting than that.

[SafetyShattered]

I don't think that New Vegas would affect DA2 at all. I loved Fallout 3 but New Vegas was just ok for me. Plus all of the bugs and crap really hurt the experience for me. So as long as DA2 does'nt have a ton of bugs then it will be vastly superior.

[Grand_Commander13]

Shadowfang12 wrote...

I don't think that New Vegas would affect DA2 at all. I loved Fallout 3 but New Vegas was just ok for me. Plus all of the bugs and crap really hurt the experience for me. So as long as DA2 does'nt have a ton of bugs then it will be vastly superior.

Spoken like someone who did not pay close attention to the original post.

[joriandrake]

I skipped a few pages but perhaps this wasn't posted yet



"Bethesda have announced that Fallout New Vegas has shipped 5 million copies worldwide.  Five million units of Fallout: New Vegas
were shipped worldwide for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and Games
for Windows, with a heavy volume of digital downloads, representing well
over $300 million in retail sales. In addition, the Fallout: New Vegas strategy guide was one of Amazon’s best sellers among all books.
“We are delighted by the reception Fallout: New Vegas
has received from fans around the world,” said Vlatko Andonov,
president of Bethesda Softworks.” Despite the large launch quantities
for this title, we have already received substantial re-orders from our
retail partners, underscoring the tremendous popularity of this highly
entertaining game. We believe Fallout: New Vegas will be the “must buy” title for gamers throughout the holiday season.”

[StingingVelvet]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Spoken like someone who did not pay close attention to the original post.

Quite a lot of that going around in this thread.

[The Masked Rog]

Vegas is still much less old school than what we have been hearing about DA2 so far, IMO. So no, I hope it doesn't mean anything to DA2, because that would be more streamlining, and I think the streamling we got in DA2 is enough to make it accessible yet engaging.

[StingingVelvet]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Vegas is still much less old school than what we have been hearing about DA2 so far, IMO. So no, I hope it doesn't mean anything to DA2, because that would be more streamlining, and I think the streamling we got in DA2 is enough to make it accessible yet engaging.

Comparing either game to something like Baldur's Gate 2 or Temple of Elemental Evil makes them both look like streamlined kiddie games, that was not my intention or the point of the thread.

Again, the simple statement: New Vegas took Fallout 3 and added complexity, despite FO3 already being a success.  Sales are still amazing and fan response, for the most part, has been positive.  What does this mean for Dragon Age 2 which is doing the opposite, streamlining an already top selling game to try and sell even more?

[The Masked Rog]

StingingVelvet wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Vegas is still much less old school than what we have been hearing about DA2 so far, IMO. So no, I hope it doesn't mean anything to DA2, because that would be more streamlining, and I think the streamling we got in DA2 is enough to make it accessible yet engaging.

Comparing either game to something like Baldur's Gate 2 or Temple of Elemental Evil makes them both look like streamlined kiddie games, that was not my intention or the point of the thread.

Again, the simple statement: New Vegas took Fallout 3 and added complexity, despite FO3 already being a success.  Sales are still amazing and fan response, for the most part, has been positive.  What does this mean for Dragon Age 2 which is doing the opposite, streamlining an already top selling game to try and sell even more?

I don't think it is fair on Dragon Age to say it is merely streamlining. It is changing much, yes, but it is mostly on combat pacing and art style. Core gameplay is relatively similar to DA:O. They added the ability upgrade system which does mean extra depth, as well as fully featured specialization trees. PLus there is a rivality/friendship system which should add another dimension to relations with NPCs. Overall I'd say that FO needed more complexity and DA:O needed less. A lot of talents were duplicated, the immense quantity of stats was overhelming and often had a not so clear impact on the game soon, but a huge impact later, leaving noob players to restart their chars (I've been there).

[upsettingshorts]

The Masked Rog wrote...
Overall I'd say that FO needed more complexity and DA:O needed less.

Watch out, you're getting awfully close to questioning the premise of the thread.  This is "off-topic" or so I was told before.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:37 .

[joriandrake]

what DA needed was more complexity, not less...

[Grand_Commander13]

DA:O's character creation complexity was fine, even had the beginnings of the appropriate quest complexity (look at the fate of Redcliffe Village, or the decision they tried to make you make with Connor except that nothing bad happens if you travel all that way to the Circle of Mages), but could do with more complexity, yes. More skill checks, like the wounded Halla, would be nice—having six or more ranks per skill would probably be better than four, etc...

From what Bioware is saying it sounds like they are using the framed narrative to give some consequences to your choices, so that is some welcome complexity.

[Leinadi]

Watch out, you're getting awfully close to questioning the premise of the thread. This is "off-topic" or so I was told before

Well, it is off-topic and not *really*relevant to the discussion here unless you think reviewers aren't mostly trend-followers. The point is that the gaming industry has really been pushing for simplicity in its games. Each time an RPG gets simplified, more action-based, less numbers to keep track off etc, it's been viewed as a good thing by the mainstream. Often it's called streamlining (which can be a good thing), when in reality it's much more akin to simply dumbing down.

The point the thread makes isn't whether F3 or F:NV are complex in themselves, it's that NV added more complexities to the game instead of taking away and "streamlining". And the fact that NV has been praised for this.

For DA2, I haven't really followed it that much. But I think some reviewers (far from all) will criticize the "modernization" (whether this means less complex remains to be seen, but I can see that) of the game at least. I think reviewers are kinda dictated by the outcries of the Internet if the cries are loud enough, and given that DA2 is receiving a bit of a beating in various communities, I can see some reviewers following that line of thinking.

Modifié par Leinadi, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

Leinadi wrote...

It is off-topic and not really relevant to the discussion here. The point is that the gaming industry has really been pushing for simplicity in its games. Each time an RPG gets simplified, more action-based, less numbers to keep track off etc, it's been viewed as a good thing by the mainstream. Often it's called streamlining (which can be a good thing), when in reality it's much more akin to simply dumbing down.


The point the thread makes isn't whether F3 or F:NV are complex in themselves, it's that NV added more complexities to the game instead of taking away and "streamlining". And the fact that NV has been praised for this.

That's why I said he was getting close to questioning the premise of the thread.  The premise is stated quite clearly in the opening post.  And it begs the question.  If I were to dispute this, I would be "off topic" yet it is relevant because if the premise isn't simply taken as understood - and I'd argue that it should't be - then the answer to the question raised in the thread title is:

Nothing.

But I'm not going to argue it anymore.   For one, it's pointless - if people want to argue based on some agreed upon premise, it's not really my problem if those premises are ultimately invalid - it's a rhetorical exercise.  If Fallout: New Vegas was indeed a success only due to or significantly due to an increase in complexity, then by all means - debate the implications as to how that might change developers' attitude towards their customers and games as a whole.  However, if I (or anyone else) elected to challenge the very basis of the argument as being invalid, that is most definitely on topic.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:56 .

[Nerevar-as]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Again, the simple statement: New Vegas took Fallout 3 and added complexity, despite FO3 already being a success.  Sales are still amazing and fan response, for the most part, has been positive.  What does this mean for Dragon Age 2 which is doing the opposite, streamlining an already top selling game to try and sell even more?

Depends on DA2 sales relative to DA:O, and maybe not even that. ME2 will probably end with sales similar to ME1 (in PC + XBOX), yet they´ve taken some of the most disliked things from that game to DA2. I´m not a fan of companion fixed appearence, especially with Isabella´s "outfit", but rune variety can make up for that, unless they use ME2 linear upgrading instead of customization. Weird considering tuning Shepard´s armor was quite popular, being the only thing customizable in the whole game.

There´s also if DA2 is actually simpler, and not just a switch to easy to understand but still complex. Although a few complains about DA:O skills wouldn´t have happened if people read the stat descriptions in game.

[Maria Caliban]

Sidney wrote...

Haven't done RTS but Vault 11 was just headscratchingly bad.

Vault 11 is more art than it is game. It gives me a breadcrumb of hope that one day I might walk into log-on to a game store and fine a plethora of excellent games that are also literature.

[The Masked Rog]

The point the thread makes isn't whether F3 or F:NV are complex in themselves, it's that NV added more complexities to the game instead of taking away and "streamlining". And the fact that NV has been praised for this.

What I'm questioning is that because FO:NV added complexity and was praised for it, DA2 would be praised if it added complexity. Games have received bad reviews in the past for being too complex, which means that more complexity != better game. There is a level of complexity that feels fine for each individual games, and this level of complexity necessarily varies with the genre of the game, its gameplay mechanics and, of course, individual preference. I don't know how to be more on topic than that. It doesn't necessarily mean something because perhaps FO:NV added complexity was praised because its prequel was lacking in complexity, while DA2 streamlining can still be praised because its prequel was not really as accessible as it should have been.

[thegreateski]

Jack ****? Fallout: New Vegas is damn near the same as Fallout 3. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

P.s. and Fable 3 was an excellent game.

Modifié par thegreateski, 20 novembre 2010 - 11:28 .

[Maria Caliban]

thegreateski wrote...

Jack ****? Fallout: New Vegas is damn near the same as Fallout 3.

That's questionable.

[joriandrake]

thegreateski wrote...
P.s. and Fable 3 was an excellent game.

was? it isn't really out yet, plus it will get expansions

Modifié par joriandrake, 21 novembre 2010 - 12:14 .

[thegreateski]

joriandrake wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
P.s. and Fable 3 was an excellent game.

was? it isn't really out yet, plus it will get expansions

Was, Is, will be. I'm a time traveler, I have tense trouble.

[Sidney]

The Masked Rog wrote...

What I'm questioning is that because FO:NV added complexity and was praised for it, DA2 would be praised if it added complexity. Games have received bad reviews in the past for being too complex, which means that more complexity != better game.

Yes but what FNV allegedly added was more story depth and that is what people like. Bioware really doesn't have the "there's not a story here" problem in their games like FO3 or Oblivion had. Making the gameplay more responsive is what DA2 is doing not "making it simpler".  Everyone wants more story depth, I'm not sure anyone without a personality defect is excitied about crafting their own ammo anymore than they enjoyed the added "complexity" of crafting runes in DAA.

Depth and complexity aren't the same thing.

Modifié par Sidney, 21 novembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[joriandrake]

thegreateski wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

thegreateski wrote...
P.s. and Fable 3 was an excellent game.

was? it isn't really out yet, plus it will get expansions

Was, Is, will be. I'm a time traveler, I have tense trouble.

so am I, and all I have to say about New Vegas and Obsidian can be summed up in a single image:

[StingingVelvet]

Sidney wrote...

Yes but what FNV allegedly added was more story depth and that is what people like. Bioware really doesn't have the "there's not a story here" problem in their games like FO3 or Oblivion had. Making the gameplay more responsive is what DA2 is doing not "making it simpler".  Everyone wants more story depth, I'm not sure anyone without a personality defect is excitied about crafting their own ammo anymore than they enjoyed the added "complexity" of crafting runes in DAA.

Depth and complexity aren't the same thing.

New Vegas added roleplaying depth, not strictly story depth.  The DT system, the limited stat increases and perks, the crafting system, hardcore mode... none of these things have anything to do with story, yet all added depth and complextity.  The faction system was a story and roleplaying addition both.

A lot of people in this thread look at depth as only story related, or as more dialogue, which is not how I meant it at all.