608 réponses à ce sujet

[Hollingdale]

StingingVelvet wrote...

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.

Not to mention the complex social/political struggle going on in the Mojave Wastelands with the enourmous amounts of possible endings.

[Ryzaki]

Yes I love the factions. Except the Legion. They're ridiculous.

[guru7892]

well I think fans are going to be doubly pissed if the game freezes or bugs out...



most people who aren't excited about DA2 ( mostly those who call it Dragon Effect). but Bob Marley just came on Pandora so its practically impossible for me to be angry right now.



but I completely understand why they would want to make Dragon Effect. Its a good style of game; its just that I made a character and I made choices, and I expected to carry over that character and their choices. If I'm playing a power obsessed mage or scheming human noble I expected to carry over that into later games. Pushing Dragon Age in a more 'action' direction is going to attract more players. Honestly most people don't want a complex game (see dwarf fortress).



I personally found DAO to be very confusing and annoying. When you get suitably complex systems you eventually find that its easier to have a single dominant stratagey. For instance in Rochambeau (Rock,Paper,Scissors) has no dominant stratagey; and Go has no dominant stratagey. In the board game Risk, I think you have to hold china, Settlers of the Catan; you never trade. (but those arn't rpgs) DAO everyone knew that the dominant stratagey was Mage Control. Keep your Mages alive, kill their Mages fast.



so Dragon Effect may lead to better game design if it uses a simpler system. It just doesn't make sense to some people as to why we can't continue the story of Urza the power obsessed Mage who is a total dick to everyone who can't enhance his mage-ly ways. Or continue the story of the Couslands who wish to heroically defend Ferelden and increase the power of their tyrn-ship. Or perhaps that knife-ear that nobody gives a crap about anyway; so he should learn his place and not participate in this story; seriously why not have a human commoner Origin and an Apostate Origin?



soo... trying to condense this rambling post into a coherent whole. Complex games aren't always that good or interesting so that shouldn't be the focus. And elves suck, hard.

[asaiasai]

Sidney wrote...

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.

I guess i am that guy with a personality disorder then because i spent close to 3 hours this morning making stuff in the game, and loved every minute of it. That 3 hours was time well spent as the items i crafted will make EVERYTHING i do so much easier. I crafted .308 JSPs this morning because when i hunt deatrh claws with regular ammo i have to be particular about the angle, distance and and location, even then i sometimes have to use two or three rounds. The ammo i made this morning hits harder which means that i do not have to be as particular about angles, distances and the location to effect a kill, and i can alot of the time get a kill from one round. I spent considerable time crafting bloat fly suprise which provides a food and water benefit for the same 1 weight unit as a food or water item, which means i can carry less water as the bloat fly suprise satisfies 2 requirements for the weight of one. If you are not playing hardcore  this time is not a necessity for the player to spend, but with hardcore mode this is time well spent as i can carry less ammo because i get more work from my bullets, and i can carry more loot back because i no longer have to carry as much water or ammo.

This depth, complexity what ever you want to call it for me made the game a much more enjoyable experience because the crafting has a beneficial effect on game play that i can see, that i can effect so the time was well spent. The trick is how to add the complexity into the game, make it relevant, but balance the need for it against the desire of some to ignore it and still provide a game both types of players can enjoy. Tinker or not to tinker, that is a player choice, a choice the player can excercise or ignore yet still be successful, that is the mark FONV developers hit. You do not have to craft special ammo to kill a deathclaw you just may need to use a few more rounds which is just a small weight penalty. Food items do not need to be crafted but the player will have again a small weight penalty as they will need to carry both a food and water instead of one bloatfly suprise which does both. 

The problem is not the concept of crafting it is the implementation of the interface for crafting that is usually the issue. In DAOA rune crafting was an awesome addition, whos implementation was ass. The idea to craft is a good one, that if you tweak the interface to make it easier would go along way. I should not have to pull out a pen and paper to work the math so that i can buy enough materials to make 3 GM Stout runes. I should not have to run in and out of the keep to make runes because the interface will not tell me in advance what i need to buy to make X runes, plus having to enter into the party interface everytime i want to leave to select the people i need to make the runes in the first place makes the crafting more difficult than it has to be.  

It may mean nothing but i do think the fact that this topic is 25 pages long filled with good and bad ideas, pros and cons, all discussed by the community WILL have some impact.  

Asai

[ok go]

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.

i'd rather play warcraft

[Sidney]

StingingVelvet wrote...
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.

Yes but if the question is "They added depth and reviewers liked it so what should DA2 do"...then DT, making ammo and the horrible Hardcore mode (other than the effect of stims) isn't what people liked.

What succeeded in FNV wasn't all the stuff you mentioned it was going away from the big emtpy sandbox and trying to have a reason to walk around shoot things in the face and a consequence to doing so which FO3 almost totally lacked and which DAO for example had plenty of.

[joriandrake]

guru7892 wrote...
soo... trying to condense this rambling post into a coherent whole. Complex games aren't always that good or interesting so that shouldn't be the focus. And elves suck, hard.

My troll-sense is tingling

[DMC12]

Sidney wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
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.

Yes but if the question is "They added depth and reviewers liked it so what should DA2 do"...then DT, making ammo and the horrible Hardcore mode (other than the effect of stims) isn't what people liked.

What succeeded in FNV wasn't all the stuff you mentioned it was going away from the big emtpy sandbox and trying to have a reason to walk around shoot things in the face and a consequence to doing so which FO3 almost totally lacked and which DAO for example had plenty of.

So wrong on so many levels. F:NV offers very little in giving you a "reason" to walk around and kill things, infact, I found the story to be very anti-climatic and scrambled. FO3 at least let you walk around a bunch of urban areas, whereas in NV, there's nothing but miles of sand and mountains (that look like they're made of sand) separating you from a couple of shacks, each of which has an exploration area equivalent to that of a really nice refrigerator.

I personally had the most fun just going around with my Enclave Power armor (which has an amazing DT) and blasting random npcs to bits with my minigun, sniper rifle, and silenced PDW looking weapon, each loaded loaded with special armor piercing ammo. I would've used other weapons, but hardcore mode limits what you can take with you, which is a good thing in my book. Of course that got stale, just like the story, once I eviscerated my 200th junkie, stomped on my 300th giant mantis, and erradicated all 10 hostile super mutants in the game.

All F:NV is, is FO3 with better weapons, less urban areas, and more sand. FO3 attempted to have a story and show progression as that story and time moved along. NV is fun at first, and the concept of having so many endings seems awesome, but ultimately it lacks cohesion, moreso than FO3. All you're left with is Wayne Newton and Ron Perlman reciting what you've done; absolutely nothing note worthy in-game (storyline wise), unless you decided to murder everybody, then all you're left with is an even emptier and boring sandbox.

What DA2 needs is what every Bioware game has: an engaging story, great environments, and gameplay that's better than their last game. The story also needs to be structured, contained, and be on "loose enough" rails so that the player thinks they have total control, when in fact, they don't. These are things that NV doesn't have, which is why many reviewers are just calling it  something along the lines of a glorified expansion pack.

[Sidney]

DMC12 wrote...

So wrong on so many levels. F:NV offers very little in giving you a "reason" to walk around and kill things, infact, I found the story to be very anti-climatic and scrambled. FO3 at least let you walk around a bunch of urban areas, whereas in NV, there's nothing but miles of sand and mountains (that look like they're made of sand) separating you from a couple of shacks, each of which has an exploration area equivalent to that of a really nice refrigerator.

..and I should have said "allegedly" when talking about story because for all the smoke blown up skirts about the depth of story I agree, there's not much of it worth mentioning and I'm basically walking around and killing stuff sort of at random 90% of the time in the game.

Still, what the reviewers are going off on is the better writing, which admittedly over FO3 isn't a high bar, and not minor tweaks in game mechanics most people don't even knows were made.