608 réponses à ce sujet

[Marionetten]

Vulee94 wrote...

PST was done by Black Isle, not Obsidian.
And true, the story was amasing, but in other departments it felt lacking. Still, it defines cRPG IMHO.

As for Dave and MCA, they should unite, not fight. Dave is a writer, MCA a designer, a tag team of awesome!

It was done by Chris Avellone who now works for Obsidian. Chris is a designer and a writer.

And yes, Planescape: Torment was lacking on the gameplay side. Which is why I view it as one side of the CRPG coin with Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn being the other.

Vulee94 wrote...

I think he meant that DAO has a lot of coversations where there's 3+ people involved, not just you and someone else like in NV.

Possibly. But interaction isn't limited to speech. It would be fairer to say that Fallout: New Vegas allows you to interact more directly with the world.

Modifié par Marionetten, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:38 .

[Meltemph]

It means that if the product do not reach the customers (us) but remain on the shelves of such retailers, shipped sales would not mean a lot.

To a point, I would have to imagine. I mean, if retailers are ordering that much, then it means there is a demand for it. Unless retailers are just buying them because of the perception?

NV teaches us something about complexity. It seems to me that it expalin the opposite (ie: the success of streamlining and marketing).

Ya know, I always thought a lot of Fallouts popularity was its accessibility. I mean, anyone could pick-up and play the game, I found it to be very user friendly. I mean, WoW has more depth then NV, so I don't really see the connection to complexity personally. So on that note, I agree completely, although, I'm not sure if for the same reason.

Modifié par Meltemph, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Grand_Commander13]

DA2 also had far better combat and character design mechanics than the original ever did. And I rather enjoyed the original.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Now this is just patently untrue. If you opt to dump the chemicals on Cottonwood Cave in Eye for an Eye you end up irradiating the area and wiping out a whole Legion camp filled with potential quest givers. If you did it stealthily you will suffer no reputation penalty with the Legion while enjoying a massive boost with the NCR. In addition to that you will trigger additional dialogue with Boone assuming you brought him. This is an event which changes the landscape of the game entirely. Far more than the Landsmeet which is a fairly linear sequence.

Like Vulee94 pointed out, I meant that all interactions in NV are between the player character and one other person. There isn't any dynamic group interaction. 

To me, the changes in the game are not about lost content or exclusivity. It's about the actual reactions of the world to what you do. The problem with New Vegas is that regardless of how you lose reputation, the reaction of NPCs to you is just tied to whatever reputation score you have. It's not a highly scripted, specific relation.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Siding with a faction changes the "world" quite a bit by changing which areas become friendly and hostile.

To me, that just isn't a big change. Fallout NV just isn't a world that feels alive or engaging to me. Just pre-programmed automatons going on about their altered routes.

Yeah, to an extent it changes the colour of the people you're shooting at, but it changes the plot and effects your moral position.

[FedericoV]

Meltemph wrote...

It means that if the product do not reach the customers (us) but remain on the shelves of such retailers, shipped sales would not mean a lot.

To a point, I would have to imagine. I mean, if retailers are ordering that much, then it means there is a demand for it. Unless retailers are just buying them because of the perception?

Perception. Bethesda's recognition. Success of FO3. Call to arms of old FO1&2 fans that were interested in Black Isle (I mean... Obsidian) doing another FO game (I mean, a true FO game ).

Ya know, I always thought a lot of Fallouts popularity was its accessibility. I mean, anyone could pick-up and play the game, I found it to be very user friendly. I mean, WoW has more depth then NV, so I don't really see the connection to complexity personally. So on that note, I agree completely, although, I not sure if for the same reason.

I agree: FO3 is a shooter with RPG elements. NV enhances the RPG elements a lot but still the game is more or less the same. That's why I do not agree with the OP. The only lesson that could be taken from NV is that marketing and accessibility improoves game sales a lot.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

Like Vulee94 pointed out, I meant that all interactions in NV are between the player character and one other person. There isn't any dynamic group interaction. 

To me, the changes in the game are not about lost content or exclusivity. It's about the actual reactions of the world to what you do. The problem with New Vegas is that regardless of how you lose reputation, the reaction of NPCs to you is just tied to whatever reputation score you have. It's not a highly scripted, specific relation.

Fair enough. Though I certainly wouldn't have used interaction as it involves far more than just dialogue sequences. If I opt to blow my quest target's head off from a mile away instead of going up to him and talking it through I'm still interacting with the world. It's true that Fallout: New Vegas doesn't place the same emphasis on dialogue but that it isn't because Obsidian hates dialogue. It's because you're able to interact more directly with the world whereas every choice in Dragon Age: Origins is done through dialogue prompts. 

And while not scripted to the same extent it's still fully possible to have specific relations with individuals in Fallout: New Vegas. Just takes a little more imagination as everything isn't spelled out for you. But such is the nature of these games.

Modifié par Marionetten, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:50 .

[StingingVelvet]

Catsith wrote...

It'll be interesting to see how BioWare fit into the RPG genre in the near future... they've been getting a ton of flak lately online for ME2 and now DA2, and there's a lot of devs out there right now who aren't afraid to make actual RPGs, and aren't worried about menus and inventories and stats driving a potential audience away. The Witcher 2, Dungeon Siege 3, Deus Ex 3.. all reportedly very rich in RPG features and coming out around DA2's ship date. And it's kind of a shame to see BioWare go in the opposite direction and join the likes of Lionhead Studios, who continue to believe the changes they're making will attract some illusionary audience of people who might enjoy dumbed-down RPGs.

People like Molyneux think the things stopping my girlfriend from playing RPGs are armor stats and tactical combat, but in reality she just doesn't want to play RPGs.  There's nothing wrong with that, not everyone is going to be into your product.  That's the lesson gaming companies need to learn, if you ask me.

I don't think Bioware is nearly that bad, but they certainly teeter on the edge sometimes.  Bioware's main issue as I see it is that if something is criticized as too complex or cumbersome they just remove it, rather than refine it.  People handle having hundreds of gun options in Fallout 3 or Borderlands just fine, it wasn't the number of options in Mass Effect that sucked it was the cumbersome inventory system.  Instead of refining that inventory system though, Bioware just removed it.

I guess my main point with this thread is that when Fable 3 and Gothic 4 are being bashed for removing gameplay, and New Vegas being praised for adding it, can Bioware keep removing depth and complexity and not get hurt by it in reviews and sales?

[slumlord722]

Personally I liked both FO3 and NV. It did seem in ways like the opposite of ME2, in that it seemed to focus on stats and such while ME2 treated them like a dirty thing.

[ErichHartmann]

New Vegas earns a spot on my all time favorite RPGs but I won't say it's complex. It's accessible to a wide range of gamers. Granted hardcore mode does exist for those who want it but figuring out a good character build is easy and interacting between the various factions.

[Meltemph]

I agree: FO3 is a shooter with RPG elements. NV enhances the RPG elements a lot but still the game is more or less the same. That's why I do not agree with the OP. The only lesson that could be taken from NV is that marketing and accessibility improoves game sales a lot.

Heh, I thought FA1&2's accessibility also contributed to its popularity at that time. I mean think about it, how complex, honestly, was FA1&2, gameplay wise?

[FedericoV]

Meltemph wrote...

I agree: FO3 is a shooter with RPG elements. NV enhances the RPG elements a lot but still the game is more or less the same. That's why I do not agree with the OP. The only lesson that could be taken from NV is that marketing and accessibility improoves game sales a lot.

Heh, I thought FA1&2's accessibility also contributed to its popularity at that time. I mean think about it, how complex, honestly, was FA1&2, gameplay wise?

Oh, its gameplay was very simple, but story and quest design was really complicated for the times. Just say that FO1&2 strenght was not gameplay, but setting, choices and consequences and overall freedom.

[Lenimph]

Bobad wrote...

One crucial thing BioWare could learn from New Vegas, don't release a game with bugs and glitches so bad they can make the game unplayable and corrupted saves that render 70+ hour games useless.

2 words... WITCH HUNT 

(hopefully a mistake learned from)

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

Like Vulee94 pointed out, I meant that all interactions in NV are between the player character and one other person. There isn't any dynamic group interaction. 

To me, the changes in the game are not about lost content or exclusivity. It's about the actual reactions of the world to what you do. The problem with New Vegas is that regardless of how you lose reputation, the reaction of NPCs to you is just tied to whatever reputation score you have. It's not a highly scripted, specific relation.

I don't understand your point.  In Fallout New Vegas you can wipe out a town because you don't like them and that town will remain empty in the game world, people will remark that it was wiped out, and any quests in that town are lost.  That is real and true change in the game world based on player interaction.

In Dragon Age all the changes are scripted, you make a choice when presented with it and then based on that choice a character or quest might be slightly different later on.  It's a much less dynamic and much more simple way of having player decision effect the game world.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
Fair enough. Though I certainly wouldn't have used interaction as it involves far more than just dialogue sequences. If I opt to blow my quest target's head off from a mile away instead of going up to him and talking it through I'm still interacting with the world. It's true that Fallout: New Vegas doesn't place the same emphasis on dialogue but that it isn't because Obsidian hates dialogue. It's because you're able to interact more directly with the world whereas every choice in Dragon Age: Origins is done through dialogue prompts. 

And while not scripted to the same extent it's still fully possible to have specific relations with individuals in Fallout: New Vegas. Just takes a little more imagination as everything isn't spelled out for you. But such is the nature of these games.

I don't consider imagination grounds for something to be a rich RPG. To me, the basis of an RPG is reactivity. A choice is only a choice if the game recognizes I made it.

So let's take your scenario: opting to snipe someone versus stab them is only a "choice" insofar as the game recognizes that I did this and has some differential reacton for it. If the entire quest tree is identical minus a few lines of dialogue or some bonus XP, then the game hasn't reacted to my choice at all.

It doesn't have anything to do with dialogue - it has to do with reaction. In New Vegas, the world does very little to actually react to you. In the cases where the world does react, the reaction is very generic and only broadly tied to some faction score.

Here is my main objection to imagination: it can quite literally be applied to any game. You can always make up your own content the game doesn't acknowledge.

[Marionetten]

Meltemph wrote...

I agree: FO3 is a shooter with RPG elements. NV enhances the RPG elements a lot but still the game is more or less the same. That's why I do not agree with the OP. The only lesson that could be taken from NV is that marketing and accessibility improoves game sales a lot.

Heh, I thought FA1&2's accessibility also contributed to its popularity at that time. I mean think about it, how complex, honestly, was FA1&2, gameplay wise?

A lot of people never made it through the starting temple in Fallout 2. But I suppose that has more to do with difficulty than accessibility. Compared to other RPGs at the time they certainly weren't that complicated.

Modifié par Marionetten, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[StingingVelvet]

ErichHartmann wrote...

New Vegas earns a spot on my all time favorite RPGs but I won't say it's complex. It's accessible to a wide range of gamers. Granted hardcore mode does exist for those who want it but figuring out a good character build is easy and interacting between the various factions.

That's kind of my point though.  New Vegas adds some depth and complexity without sacrificing how accessible and easy to play the game is.  It pleases shooter gamers and RPG gamers alike, and did it without sacrificing review scores or sales.

It's an example of how a game can actually appeal to different audiences without being too complex for one or dumbed down crap for the other.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
I don't understand your point.  In Fallout New Vegas you can wipe out a town because you don't like them and that town will remain empty in the game world, people will remark that it was wiped out, and any quests in that town are lost.  That is real and true change in the game world based on player interaction.

It isn't a real change at all. You've just commited genocide on an unspeakable scale, and best, what's likely to happen is that you lost the faction approval and some quests. That's it. Your karma score takes a hit.

That isn't anything dramatic or interesting.

In Dragon Age all the changes are scripted, you make a choice when presented with it and then based on that choice a character or quest might be slightly different later on.  It's a much less dynamic and much more simple way of having player decision effect the game world.

Dragon Age doesn't really do choice all that well either, but when you do make a major one, you can get some dramatic reactions. The best being the absolute ****storms that some companions will have given a plot choice you make, i.e. Alistair with Connor or Wynne/Leliana with the Sacred Ashes. They act as if you are a real person that just commited an atrocity, instead of getting; Faction Score -5, Karma Score -4, no more future quests.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

So let's take your scenario: opting to snipe someone versus stab them is only a "choice" insofar as the game recognizes that I did this and has some differential reacton for it. If the entire quest tree is identical minus a few lines of dialogue or some bonus XP, then the game hasn't reacted to my choice at all.

That wasn't his example, and in fact you are completely mischaraterizing New Vegas.  You can shoot the guy instead of talk to him, and that changes the game world.  It's not shoot versus stab.  You can work with the Legion and get quests from them, effecting how other factions see you, or you can shoot the Legion on sight, losing all their quests and dialogue but gaining new options elsewhere.

The equivalent in Dragon Age would be letting you decide to work with the Darkspawn and take over Ferelden, opening up new Darkspawn quests and closing off Warden quests.

[Grand_Commander13]

Oh, like how Veronica will leave you if you blow up the Brotherhood bunker, other companions will quit if you're evil, and Boone will leave if you turn on the NCR? Boone won't even let you get close enough to the Legion to side with them if he's with you.

[Meltemph]

That's kind of my point though. New Vegas adds some depth and complexity without sacrificing how accessible and easy to play the game is. It pleases shooter gamers and RPG gamers alike, and did it without sacrificing review scores or sales.

I dunno if I would call their hardcore mode adding much of anything... After played a few days with HC mode, not really seeing how it adds anything. I mean, I'm not even having issues with ammo.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
That wasn't his example, and in fact you are completely mischaraterizing New Vegas.  You can shoot the guy instead of talk to him, and that changes the game world.  It's not shoot versus stab.  You can work with the Legion and get quests from them, effecting how other factions see you, or you can shoot the Legion on sight, losing all their quests and dialogue but gaining new options elsewhere.

It is absolutely shoot versus stab.You lose some quests - that's it. All you do by going around on a murder spree is remove content for yourself. You dont have special, unique content. You just have no content. That isn't a reaction. That's barely window dressing.

The equivalent in Dragon Age would be letting you decide to work with the Darkspawn and take over Ferelden, opening up new Darkspawn quests and closing off Warden quests.

What makes you think I think Dragon Age handled choice well? I never made that claim. What they do better than New Vegas is handle interaction well, and I prefer dealing with people than inventing content for myself.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

It isn't a real change at all. You've just commited genocide on an unspeakable scale, and best, what's likely to happen is that you lost the faction approval and some quests. That's it. Your karma score takes a hit.

That isn't anything dramatic or interesting.

I don't agree with you at all, sorry.  That kind of dynmaic effect on the world is VERY dramatic and VERY interesting.  It means my actions as a player shape the entire world around me, rather than unlocking one scripted dialogue versus another while the game world and future quests remain almost exactly the same.

[ErichHartmann]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Oh, like how Veronica will leave you if you blow up the Brotherhood bunker, other companions will quit if you're evil, and Boone will leave if you turn on the NCR? Boone won't even let you get close enough to the Legion to side with them if he's with you.

Ehehehe, Veronica stayed with me after I blew up the bunker.  Pretty sure it wasn't a glitch either.  

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...

I don't agree with you at all, sorry.  That kind of dynmaic effect on the world is VERY dramatic and VERY interesting.  It means my actions as a player shape the entire world around me, rather than unlocking one scripted dialogue versus another while the game world and future quests remain almost exactly the same.

It means absolutely nothing for me, because no one reacts to it. Sure, the quest tree is different. But no one acknowledges it. You get some throw-away dialogue. That's it.

Look, I don't expect you to get why I like the games that I do. But you need to appreciate that I have a different standard of what choice and reactivity are.