608 réponses à ce sujet

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Slaughtering the Legion opens up content with the NCR, and vice versa.  I think you need to play the game before commenting on it further.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

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.

This is where I'm going to have to completely disagree with you and wonder if you played the same game. Less reactivity? One of the very first choices you get in the game is letting a bunch of thugs wipe out a town. Something which the game does recognize and continues to recognize throughout your whole playthrough. Of course, the faction system is heavily tied into the reactivity of the world. If you do wipe out the town you get reputation with the thugs which allows you to travel to their headquarters and do more work for them. If you opt to save the town you get reputation with the town but the thugs will refuse to deal with you. This is the world reacting to your choices.

And of course the game recognizes if I opt to kill someone stealthily versus going in there with a sledgehammer. First of all, I won't have nearly as difficult of a fight on my hands. Secondly, you incur no faction penalties for stealth kills. Thirdly, pulling off the perfect stealth kill is pretty darn satisfying.

In Exile wrote...

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.

Once again, you're hung up on dialogue here. Dialogue is not the only form of interactivity in a video game nor is it the only way to provide feedback. It's fine if you don't like the game but to say it isn't reactive or interactive is just false.

Modifié par Marionetten, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[Grand_Commander13]

In Exile wrote...

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.

So you're saying you prefer to watch a movie where you have meaningless dialogue with many people rather than have the ability to affect the world much more than even Dragon Age which, while being Bioware's best in the field, you admit is lacking?

I'm curious: what exactly makes your idiosyncratic preferences superior to others'?

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Slaughtering the Legion opens up content with the NCR, and vice versa.  I think you need to play the game before commenting on it further.

I did play the game. Killing Legion officers doesn't affect your NCR faction score at all; all it does is hurt your Legion score.

[Meltemph]

Slaughtering the Legion opens up content with the NCR, and vice versa.

Which quests? I've beaten the game quite a few times now... What quests are you seeing that comes from killing the Legion? I mean, you can technically kill as many NCR or Legion as you want and as soon as you kill Benny you get a get out of jail free card.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

I did play the game. Killing Legion officers doesn't affect your NCR faction score at all; all it does is hurt your Legion score.

Anti-Legion quests gives you massive boosts with the NCR. Legion officers also have a chance of dropping ears which can be turned in for reputation.

Modifié par Marionetten, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:11 .

[StingingVelvet]

Meltemph wrote...

Slaughtering the Legion opens up content with the NCR, and vice versa.

Which quests? I've beaten the game quite a few times now... What quests are you seeing that comes from killing the Legion? I mean, you can technically kill as many NCR or Legion as you want and as soon as you kill Benny you get a get out of jail free card.

Nelson is a good example, you can choose to eradicate it which opens unique dialogue and completes a quest for the Rangers, or you can fail that Ranger quest and go into Nelson and conversate and get quests from Legion members.

All in all though I meant on a more grand scale... if you play as someone who considers the Legion to be evil and shoots them on sight with Boone then it changes the game world and your own personal story expereince greatly.  I stormed in and killed Caesar without even talking to him once, then backed the NCR for the ending.  I wiped out whole Legion towns and patrols and rather than accept the amnesty and message of Caesar after Benny I killed the messenger.  You can very much shape your world and gameplay experience based on choice.  In Dragon Age and Mass Effect you basically just alter some dialogue, or maybe get a different path in the next linear quest.  The game world remains exactly the same.

In_Exile seems to be focusing on what people say to you later being the most important change, "oh Warden why did you kill that possessed boy?"  I am saying it is a much more satisfying change in the game to have the whole world change based on your decisions.

[Meltemph]

I am saying it is a much more satisfying change in the game to have the whole world change based on your decisions.

I dunno. I enjoy NV well enough and all, but the story I wouldn't say is all that special. Definitely enjoyed Biowares stories/aesthetics a lot more. Gameplay wise, it is depending on how I feel that day.



That is not to say I did not enjoy NV story a lot, because I did, just not as much.

[Dave of Canada]

If Obsidian should be complimented, they are good at taking stuff other people made and improving upon it. Who cares if the original company, if they made a sequel, could've done similar changes since they didn't need to create the engine a second time.

Obsidian, when forced to create stuff for themselves, is just... bad.



I liked Alpha Protocol a lot more than people give it credit for, however I can't sit here and say with a straight face that the gameplay isn't broken beyond repair.

Bioware isn't going to take notes from the New Vegas team because you know... they just "improved" upon Fallout 3 while making the game exactly identical. Though that's EXACTLY what people want and that's what is killing JRPGs.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:42 .

[Marionetten]

I actually thought Alpha Protocol pulled off the whole choice and consequence thing way better than Mass Effect did. Yes, the shooting aspect was horrid ( which is why I played as a stealther ) but watching the storyline warp around your choices was pretty awesome. The ending in particular satisfied me like none other as my Thornton went on a killing spree to tie up all the loose ends.

As for BioWare not taking notes... well, that's just a tad bit arrogant of a statement considering the whole reputation system found in Dragon Age: Origins was taken from previous Obsidian titles.

Modifié par Marionetten, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[StingingVelvet]

I liked Alpha Protocol, but that is neither here nor there.

This thread is doing what a lot of forum threads do, which is dance around the point and look for competitions and rivalries. That is not the intent. The question is simple, and I may update the OP to reflect this:

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?

It's not about whether you prefer the more guided and cinematic Bioware style or the more open Betheda style, it's about adding versus removing depth.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 14 novembre 2010 - 07:13 .

[ErichHartmann]

StingingVelvet wrote...

I liked Alpha Protocol, but that is neither here nor there.

This thread is doing what a lot of forum threads do, which is dance around the point and look for competitions and rivalries. That is not the intent. The question is simple, and I may update the OP to reflect this:

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?

That's the point.

Not at the moment.  We know very little about DAII's storyline and as a longtime BioWare fan I have little doubts about their complex storytelling abilities.  

[Meltemph]

It's not about whether you prefer the more guided and cinematic Bioware style or the more open Betheda style, it's about adding versus removing depth.

What "depth" are you talking about? FONV plays near identical to FO3.

[Ulous]

StingingVelvet wrote...

I liked Alpha Protocol, but that is neither here nor there.

This thread is doing what a lot of forum threads do, which is dance around the point and look for competitions and rivalries. That is not the intent. The question is simple, and I may update the OP to reflect this:

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?

It's not about whether you prefer the more guided and cinematic Bioware style or the more open Betheda style, it's about adding versus removing depth.

Yes but why would Bioware concern themselves about adding/removing depth based on FNV when that isn't why the game has done so well?

[Dave of Canada]

StingingVelvet wrote...

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?

Very much doubt it. Hardcore mode for example would never work in the Dragon Age 2 system, as does much of the features in the game. People who'd argue saying "DA2 needs hardcore mode" or "DA2 needs X from New Vegas" is comparing apples to oranges.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

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?

I doubt it. I think Bioware is going to do what they want, but I also think EA has some influence and would be prefer a more mainstream game over a hardcore RPG.

I played Fable 3 and a lot of the criticism that game received seemed unfair. I think it was more indepth than Fable 1 or 2 for the most part. A few things were cut that annoyed me, but it was a damn good game that I spent a lot of time in.

That said, I don't believe review scores for other games matter that much. Sales are what matter, and despite Fable 3's mixed reception, the game is going to sell millions. But I do believe DA2 will be a more mainstream title, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little worried about it.

[David Gaider]

StingingVelvet wrote...
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?

I don't think you can look at these things in isolation, really. Open world games are capable of doing things in a very different way from story-driven games-- and each approach comes with its trade-offs. The reviewers are going to comment based on the specific improvements or problems that they're seeing, especially in comparison to whatever came before... they're not really commenting on "this is what RPG's should do in general" and I don't think it should be taken that way.

Our games focus more on story and interaction. Does this make them more linear? Sure, that's probably a fair statement, but linearity doesn't make it bad-- and reviewers (or good ones, anyhow) are going to judge it based on the quality of the experience presented, not on how they think it should have been something else.

As for how it'll effect sales, that's an argument in and of itself. Will FO:NV succeed because it's part of a successful franchise? Because it's got such great reactivity? I don't know-- people like to make claims about why games succeed or fail commercially, but that tends to say more about their own biases than anything else. And I'm not saying this is something only the fans do. The industry does it as well: seeing features of unsuccessful games as indicative of that feature's unpopularity is no more valid than doing the opposite and assuming a successful game's features can be replicated with the same financial success. I see a game like Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil which I thought did turn-based combat quite well and I cringe when it is used as an example of why turn-based combat "just isn't popular" because of the game's perceived sales. It's too bad, really.

I guess what I'm saying is that, at least with respect to getting good review scores (which does have importance to us, obviously, even if that doesn't always translate into good sales) we're going to do the type of game we do as well as we can do it... and we can't really look at other games in the genre that do things differently without understanding the trade-offs they accepted to do them. Despite both being RPG's, there are huge differences between how DA2 and FO:NV will play, just as there are huge differences between DA2 and ME2 (despite the insistence of some). We'll no doubt look at how FO does these things, sure, and see if there's anything to learn from them... just as we do with other games we play. That doesn't mean we can transplant those features wholesale into what we do. One cannot cherry-pick the best features of games and assemble them like a salad, minus the trade-offs. That's wishful thinking.

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

[SnakeHelah]

To me Fallout New Vegas was just the same Fallout 3 with new weapons and a new area and a new storyline. Which can be accomplished by mods these days. The Engine was still the same Nothing impressive to me, a game which I didn't replay.

[TuringPoint]

I don't care what the OP thinks. Bioware has not watered down any of their franchises for simplification's sake, and they never will.

[Rockworm503]

I fail to see the point of this thread. I love New Vegas but I also love DA its comparing apples to oranges I like both for very different reasons.

[hexaligned]

Alocormin wrote...

I don't care what the OP thinks. Bioware has not watered down any of their franchises for simplification's sake, and they never will.

I'm trying to decide if you are being sarcastic or not, but on the chance you aren't... "streamlining" and " simplifying" are pretty much the key descriptors of both ME2 and DA2, and have been used by devs themselves.  The fact they HAVE done it isn't even debatable (well not rationally debatable anyways)  The only thing that is, is the "why" of it. 
Snickering PC elitest like me will suggest it was done to appeal to the attention spans of the console generation out there, while Dev post (I have seen) claim that's just coincidentlly the game they wanted to make anyways.  Which might be true, and DA2 might be better for it, (I think it will certainly SELL better anyways)

Modifié par relhart, 14 novembre 2010 - 08:37 .

[StingingVelvet]

Rockworm503 wrote...

I fail to see the point of this thread. I love New Vegas but I also love DA its comparing apples to oranges I like both for very different reasons.

It's not about comparing the two games at all really, it is about adding depth versus removing it and the general feelings among fans and reviewers at the moment about it.

[StingingVelvet]

David Gaider wrote...

Our games focus more on story and interaction. Does this make them more linear? Sure, that's probably a fair statement, but linearity doesn't make it bad-- and reviewers (or good ones, anyhow) are going to judge it based on the quality of the experience presented, not on how they think it should have been something else.

That's a really good point actually, Fallout NV and Gothic 4 were both games in a style of RPG that is more open and complex (in a way) by default.  A more linear and story-driven game (which I agree is not a bad thing) might be more acceptable to streamline by default, as it is more of a "ride" in a sense, which immediately puts the player in a more guided mindset.

When one closes off large sections of an open park it becomes immediately apparent that the park is smaller, where as if one just makes the rollercoaster ride more smooth and fast, it's more of a sublte and behind the scenes change.

Or am I reaching for metaphor?

[David Gaider]

StingingVelvet wrote...
It's not about comparing the two games at all really, it is about adding depth versus removing it and the general feelings among fans and reviewers at the moment about it.

I just find it heartening that so many people say a game where you don't play the same character as the previous game, and also play a human only with a single origin is still capable of depth. Who'd have thunk it?

Modifié par David Gaider, 14 novembre 2010 - 08:32 .

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
I just find it heartening that so many people say a game where you don't pay the same character as the previous game, and also play a human only with a single origin is still capable of depth. Who'd have thunk it?

I think the New Vegas comparison has more to do with the increased customization bits with the PC and the emphasis on showcasing stat based abilities and perks rather than trying to brush all of the numbers under the rug. And stuff like hardcore mode for those that want it. And then NV has the whole silent PC thing going for it...so...