1008 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The devs clarified earlier on in this thread that we will be able to pull back and get something close to an overhead view, but as stated in the article, there's no longer going to be the old overhead tactical view on the PC. It has nothing to do with being ported from the console. As was stated in the article:

The bigger change, however, is that the game will no longer support an overhead tactical view on any platform. This was an art and combat-design decision, the BioWare rep told me today. Support for that Baldur's Gate-style view forced the artists to design rooms and scenes that didn't have important things on their ceilings and skies — which top-down players wouldn't see. It also forced the designers into an awkward spot where they had to accommodate top-down turn-taking players and behind-the-back action-first players. By catering to the more reckless of those playing styles, the designers were forced to make the game's difficulty fairly low.[/i][i] Making all players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view alleviates that. But! PC gamers, your version will include a special option to zoom the camera out, just not up. Console gamers won't get that.

Why would their be important things on the ceiling? And why were they required to dumb down the difficulty even further? Didn't Origins patches do enough of that? Totally sounds like a cop out answer or just a BS excuse. 

Obviously, the consoles aren't that well equipped to handle the top-down view and a completely tactical approach in DA:O. Their gameplay style probably forced the designers into making DA:O combat easier so that they weren't penalized because of their inability to zoom all the way out like we could on the PC.

The devs have previously stated that they've worked on increasing the combat difficulty in the sequel. Presumably, they settled on a middle ground with the camera that allows them to up the difficulty without penalizing console players with what for them is probably an awkward system (aka the old tactical overhead view). Meanwhile, we still get something close to the old tactical camera on the PC.

Thats all well and good but you're missing the point I'm trying to get across, they keep trying to sell the idea that the 3 skus are seperate development. If that is indeed the case why would the tactical camera on the PC not be as full featured as in Origins? That factor really doesn't sit well with me as theres no logical reason why it would need to stay fixed on a character, or be more limited in zoom.

[tishyw]

lrrose wrote...

This is the third time I've posted this, but the sentence about dumbing down the difficulty to accommodate reckless playing styles refers to Origins, not DA2. No marketing representative would be foolish enough to say that about the product that s/he is currently pitching.

That's what I thought they were saying when I first read it as well, but now I'm not so sure.

Think about this - he talks about two styles of play, overhead = harder, over the shoulder = reckless which means that they had to make the game play easier to accomodate the over the shoulder style.

With the overhead game play removed in DA2, we're all being forced to use the over the shoulder style, which is the style that needed the easier gameplay.  Therefore by not catering to the overhead style, they don't need to worry about making the game player harder because they expect us to use the reckless playing style.

Does that make sense?

[Maria Caliban]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Its the only game I can still play over and over  and OVER an NEVER get sick of it. Im on mt 12th or so playthrough of the series now. It IS the golder standard in which all games forever must be judged.

and no that wasn't sarcasm

There's a difference between: "Here is a series that I love" and "Every RPG has to be like the series I love."

I loved Labyrinth. It's a movie I have watched many, many times. I have never demanded that other fantasy movies be Labyrinth or suggested that the failure of Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Last Unicorn, Dark City, the Matrix, Spider-Man, Pan's Labyrinth, Spirited Away, and Dracula to be Labyrinth meant they were bad or lesser movies.

I don't expect every fantasy movie to be like my favorite fantasy movie nor to I judge fantasy movies by how close they are to my favorite fantasy movie.

Why do people expect every BioWare RPG to be like their favorite RPG and judge it by how close it is to their favorite RPG?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 19 novembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[lrrose]

tishyw wrote...

lrrose wrote...

This is the third time I've posted this, but the sentence about dumbing down the difficulty to accommodate reckless playing styles refers to Origins, not DA2. No marketing representative would be foolish enough to say that about the product that s/he is currently pitching.

That's what I thought they were saying when I first read it as well, but now I'm not so sure.

Think about this - he talks about two styles of play, overhead = harder, over the shoulder = reckless which means that they had to make the game play easier to accomodate the over the shoulder style.

With the overhead game play removed in DA2, we're all being forced to use the over the shoulder style, which is the style that needed the easier gameplay.  Therefore by not catering to the overhead style, they don't need to worry about making the game player harder because they expect us to use the reckless playing style.

Does that make sense?

"By catering to the more reckless of those playing styles, the designers
were forced to make the game's difficulty fairly low. Making all
players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view alleviates
that. "

Past tense is used in the first sentence, present tense is used in the second.  Origins has been out for about a year.  DA2 isn't out yet.  Therefore, it is likely that the first sentence refers to Origins, whereas the second refers to DA2.  At the very least, DA2 won't intentionally be easier than Origins.

[MerinTB]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Why do people expect every BioWare RPG to be like their favorite RPG and judge it by how close it is to their favorite RPG?

Find me one person who's said this - just one - and I'll side with you against them so such an unreasonable stance.

Find.  Me.  One.

One person who says all, most, or even ONE BioWare game must be like their favorite game.

Until then, stop the strawman.


EDIT - and before I just assume you understand that Tiax was saying "gold standard to be judged by" he simply meant that it was his favorite and he compares others to it to see how they fare... it's a pretty common thing to say "standard by which I compare others to" and it's also pretty common knowledge that this means it's used as a measuring stick or benchmark.

Something used to measure other things != something that all other things must be exactly like.

I compare most cRPGs to Icewind Dale, V:TM-B, Freedom Force and Wasteland.  It doesn't mean that I expect all cRPGs to be like one of those - heck, those 4 are vastly different from each other.

Modifié par MerinTB, 19 novembre 2010 - 05:08 .

[Maria Caliban]

MerinTB wrote...

Find me one person who's said this - just one - and I'll side with you against them so such an unreasonable stance.

Find.  Me.  One.

Until then, stop the strawman.

You do love to call everything a strawman. The one was in the very post I quoted.

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Its the only game I can still play over and over and OVER an NEVER get sick of it. Im on mt 12th or so playthrough of the series now. It IS the golder standard in which all games forever must be judged.

and no that wasn't sarcasm

Unless you're suggesting that BG being the golden standard by which all games forever must be judged isn't judging all games by how close they are to BG.

MerinTB wrote...

EDIT - and before I just assume you understand that Tiax was saying "gold standard to be judged by" he simply meant that it was his favorite and he compares others to it to see how they fare... it's a pretty common thing to say "standard by which I compare others to" and it's also pretty common knowledge that this means it's used as a measuring stick or benchman.

Right. So he does exactly what I'm saying he does and exactly what you claim no one does while admitting he does it.

Likewise, I love Labyrinth, but at no time do I judge other fantasy movies by the standards of Labyrinth. Because that's unreasonable.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 19 novembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[MerinTB]

Maria Caliban wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Find me one person who's said this - just one - and I'll side with you against them so such an unreasonable stance.

Find.  Me.  One.

Until then, stop the strawman.

You do love to call everything a strawman. The one was in the very post I quoted.

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Its the only game I can still play over and over and OVER an NEVER get sick of it. Im on mt 12th or so playthrough of the series now. It IS the golder standard in which all games forever must be judged.

and no that wasn't sarcasm

Unless you're suggesting that BG being the golden standard by which all games forever must be judged isn't judging all games by how close they are to BG.

I was correcting and editting my post while you responded, and that's not your fault.

Anywho-

Hyperbole.  I don't even call 1/100th of the posts I respond to strawmen.  Just the ones that ARE strawmen.

You set up an argument against people who are saying "all BioWare games must be like their favorite game" - and the caveat of "be judged by" is a meaningless addition as it then includes most people, as I think few are the gamers who don't compare a new game to other games they liked to judge it's quality.  Without comparing the quality of different games you cannot judge quality overall - without some standard, without some measure, this is no real way to figure out a game's quality.

[tishyw]

lrrose wrote...
"By catering to the more reckless of those playing styles, the designers
were forced to make the game's difficulty fairly low. Making all
players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view alleviates
that. "

Past tense is used in the first sentence, present tense is used in the second.  Origins has been out for about a year.  DA2 isn't out yet.  Therefore, it is likely that the first sentence refers to Origins, whereas the second refers to DA2.  At the very least, DA2 won't intentionally be easier than Origins.

Yeah, I know that's what they said, and maybe I'm reading to much between the lines, but it seems to me that he could also be saying that they're abandoning trying to cater to harder gaming, and only catering to the reckless playing style by nerfing the camera movement.  "Making all players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view", which he's stated is the more reckless or easier playing style.

I'm just concerned that they're turning DA2 into a hack 'n slash Diablo clone, and this statement doesn't ease that at all.

[MerinTB]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Right. So he does exactly what I'm saying he does and exactly what you claim no one does while admitting he does it.

Ok, let's compare -

Tiax Rules All wrote...
It IS the golder standard in which all games forever must be judged.

You say this is exactly the same as -

Maria Caliban wrote...
expect every BioWare RPG to be like their favorite RPG

Those are the same thing?  At all?

Gold standard - a diagnostic test or benchmark that is regarded as definitive; the supreme example of something against which others are judged or measured

Measured against != be like

I can love pears.  Pears can be my favorite fruit.  I can decide that, for fruit, pears are my gold standard, the fruit by which I compare all other fruit.  I eat a strawberry, and the flavor doesn't affect me in the same way.  It is judged low.  I eat a pineapple - hey, that's tasty, I enjoyed that far more than the strawberry, but not quite as much as the pear.  Now I have a scale - Pear at the top, as my gold standard, then pineapple, and last the strawberry.

Something about gold standards - since the concept is borrowed from medicine, so is it's usage.  A gold standard is not infalliable and can be replaced by something better if it is discovered.

I try an apple.  I enjoy it more than the pear!  Wow, now the apple is my gold standard, the fruit I compare all other fruit to.

Nowhere in "gold standard" in any definition I know of or have heard (outside of you right here, right now) has ever implie that the "benchmark" means how "the same" it is.  It's a measurement, not a matching.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Unless you're suggesting that BG being the golden standard by which all games forever must be judged isn't judging all games by how close they are to BG.

That's not just what I'm suggesting - that's actually what gold standard means.

Another definition - a paragon of excellence.

A definition I've not found  for gold standard - that which all similar things must closely resemble or emulate.

Modifié par MerinTB, 19 novembre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Meltemph]

I'm just concerned that they're turning DA2 into a hack 'n slash Diablo clone, and this statement doesn't ease that at all.

So mmo's are hack and slash to you? Because if anything, that is what it most feels like they are moving closer to then anything(although I'm not quite sure what you would call DAO). I don't even get the diablo comparison, honestly. I see nothing that resembles Diablo at all.

Without comparing the quality of different games you cannot judge quality overall - without some standard, without some measure, this is no real way to figure out a game's quality.

You don't judge the quality of a game based on how much you liked another game. You base the quality of a game based on the game that they actually made. Many are judging DA2 based on wanting a different game, I definitely would not say many are judging the game for what it is.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...
Or do I? I just don't know anymore. After hearing the ME multiplayer shooter rumor, I cant think striaght anymore. I kinda feel like crying. (Que BDF saying I cant feel this way)

What'd be wrong with a spin off of Mass Effect being in a genre you're not a fan of?  It'd... be a spin off. 

If it turns out to be a Mass Effect version of Starcraft I'll get to ignore it the same way I do Starcraft.

/confused

Funny you mention Starcraft.

How'd Ghost work out for Blizzard?

*crickets*

How'd Redguard work out for Bethesda?

*crickets*

Sometimes "branching" isn't a good thing.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
 Without comparing the quality of different games you cannot judge quality overall - without some standard, without some measure, this is no real way to figure out a game's quality.

Assuming that it's even coherent to talk about "quality" in the abstract like that. I've officially joined the nihilist camp here, after one too many of these debates.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
Funny you mention Starcraft.
Sometimes "branching" isn't a good thing.

I only mentioned it as a genre I wasn't interested in to demonstrate that the notion of being upset over a spinoff is odd to me.  Whether or not the game is critically or financially successful in the end for Bioware shouldn't really have any bearing on whether or not people "feel sick" over the game's genre before it's even released.  

Unless they're EA stockholders.  Then I could understand.  It's either a game you're interested in or a game you're not interested in.  Where is it written that Bioware must only make RPGs, or RPG-inspired hybrids?  If they do choose to branch out, what's the problem?  If we don't like it we don't have to buy it, and if it's a spinoff, no-one's expectations are being dashed.  

Note to Tiax:  Just because I don't get how you can feel a certain way doesn't mean I'm disputing that you do, or have the right to.  Only that to comprehend where you're coming from I'd need an explanation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 novembre 2010 - 05:32 .

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
I can love pears.  Pears can be my favorite fruit.  I can decide that, for fruit, pears are my gold standard, the fruit by which I compare all other fruit.  I eat a strawberry, and the flavor doesn't affect me in the same way.  It is judged low.  I eat a pineapple - hey, that's tasty, I enjoyed that far more than the strawberry, but not quite as much as the pear.  Now I have a scale - Pear at the top, as my gold standard, then pineapple, and last the strawberry.

So a pineapple is a better pineapple if it tastes more like a pear than like a pineapple? You may want to re-think this metaphor.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

Without comparing the quality of different games you cannot judge quality overall - without some standard, without some measure, this is no real way to figure out a game's quality.

You don't judge the quality of a game based on how much you liked another game. You base the quality of a game based on the game that they actually made.

Without having played other games, how can you possibly know what is "quality"?

Someone who's never heard any music ever before might find the beginning music student's earnest but unskilled attempts at playing their instrument very good, until they hear a high school student who's had years of training... and then that's great until they hear a symphony orchestra, etc.

Without some previous experience with a thing, or something to compare it to, there is no way to evaluate it.

Is this pencil long or short?  Your answer will most likely be based on what you perceive as the "standard" length for a pencil.  Without that knowledge, how can you judge if it is long or short?

You could look at the ten inch long pencil, with no point of reference to other pencils in your memory or at hand, and think "ten inches isn't that much, a ruler is twelve inches, I'll say it's short" (note still comparing it a system of measurement AND a measuring device there), or you could think "ten inches, wow, a toothpick is like two inches, so five times that is quite long!"

How do you know if a game is good or bad if you've have no other game experience to compare it with?

You need points of reference, otherwise any evaluation you try to make is meaningless.

[tishyw]

So mmo's are hack and slash to you? Because if anything, that is what it most feels like they are moving closer to then anything(although I'm not quite sure what you would call DAO). I don't even get the diablo comparison, honestly. I see nothing that resembles Diablo at all.

Don't know dude, I don't play mmo's.  I'm just calling it how I see it, and you're very welcome to see it another way.  But I do know that sometimes it pays to read between the lines when we're talking about PR speak.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...

How do you know if a game is good or bad if you've have no other game experience to compare it with?

If I enjoyed playing it, it was good. If I didn't, it was bad.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I can love pears.  Pears can be my favorite fruit.  I can decide that, for fruit, pears are my gold standard, the fruit by which I compare all other fruit.  I eat a strawberry, and the flavor doesn't affect me in the same way.  It is judged low.  I eat a pineapple - hey, that's tasty, I enjoyed that far more than the strawberry, but not quite as much as the pear.  Now I have a scale - Pear at the top, as my gold standard, then pineapple, and last the strawberry.

So a pineapple is a better pineapple if it tastes more like a pear than like a pineapple? You may want to re-think this metaphor.

It doesn't have to taste like a pear.

Wow, some of you sure ACT dense.  And I know you aren't dense, AlanC9.

Gold standard comes from medicine.  If there is a current treatment that best deals with, say, cancer, then that treatment is the gold standard.
For the sake of argument (and because I don't want more "pear tasting pineapple" tangent nonsense) let's call the gold standard treatment for cancer "treatment X".
Now all other treatments, regardless of what they are (chemicals, radiation, surgery) are compared to treatment X for how effective they are.
Is chemotherapy anything at all like surgery?  Not really - one's introducting chemicals into the body, the other is cutting out parts.
But both are compared to the gold standard of cancer therapy, treatment X.

Following the common analogy use of "gold standard" for games...

Halo, for many people, after it's release became a gold standard for FPS that other FPS would be compared to.  Does Call of Duty fail in comparison because there are no energy rifles and you can't drive vehicles and you don't fight aliens?
NO.

So comparing other RPGs to Baludr's Gate does not require the other RPGs to use 2nd ED D&D rules, to have six member parties that you make one character but recruit up to five others, takes place in the Forgotten Realms...

Anyone making that argument doens't truly understand the difference between "comparing" and "equating."

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

How do you know if a game is good or bad if you've have no other game experience to compare it with?

If I enjoyed playing it, it was good. If I didn't, it was bad.

Ok.

Shame on me for being baited this long.

Done for the night.

[Malanek]

tishyw wrote...

lrrose wrote...
"By catering to the more reckless of those playing styles, the designers
were forced to make the game's difficulty fairly low. Making all
players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view alleviates
that. "

Past tense is used in the first sentence, present tense is used in the second.  Origins has been out for about a year.  DA2 isn't out yet.  Therefore, it is likely that the first sentence refers to Origins, whereas the second refers to DA2.  At the very least, DA2 won't intentionally be easier than Origins.

Yeah, I know that's what they said, and maybe I'm reading to much between the lines, but it seems to me that he could also be saying that they're abandoning trying to cater to harder gaming, and only catering to the reckless playing style by nerfing the camera movement.  "Making all players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view", which he's stated is the more reckless or easier playing style.

I'm just concerned that they're turning DA2 into a hack 'n slash Diablo clone, and this statement doesn't ease that at all.

You are aware that Diablo (and clones) use a top down tactical camera? It is absolutely vital for fast paced gameplay. They are not designed to run on consoles at all. Whatever games DA2 may resemble, it is not Diablo.

[Maria Caliban]

MerinTB wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Right. So he does exactly what I'm saying he does and exactly what you claim no one does while admitting he does it.

Ok, let's compare -

Tiax Rules All wrote...
It IS the golder standard in which all games forever must be judged.

You say this is exactly the same as -

Maria Caliban wrote...
expect every BioWare RPG to be like their favorite RPG

Those are the same thing?  At all?

I'm surprised that someone who is so adamantly against strawmans has no problem falling back on one.

Gold standard - a diagnostic test or benchmark that is regarded as definitive; the supreme example of something against which others are judged or measured

Measured against != be like

Can you give an example of two things not being alike but being able to measure one by the other in a reasonable way? If I declared my cat the gold standard of animals, would you think it reasonable to measure your dog by the specific qualities I value in my cat?

I would find that unreasonable. Not all pets are my cat nor should they be and assuming that my cat should be used as the 'gold standard' all pets are judged by makes no sense.

I can love pears.  Pears can be my favorite fruit.  I can decide that, for fruit, pears are my gold standard, the fruit by which I compare all other fruit.  I eat a strawberry, and the flavor doesn't affect me in the same way.  It is judged low.  I eat a pineapple - hey, that's tasty, I enjoyed that far more than the strawberry, but not quite as much as the pear.  Now I have a scale - Pear at the top, as my gold standard, then pineapple, and last the strawberry.

And that judgment is unreasonable. You can love pears and hate strawberries, but judging a strawberry by your personal ideal of 'pearness' is inane. Suggesting that a strawberry is that fails to be sufficiently pearlike is low quality makes no sense.

MerinTB wrote...

Wow, some of you sure ACT dense.

If the horrid stupidity of those who think differently than you do becomes unbearable, please feel free to let us know.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 19 novembre 2010 - 05:49 .

[Ziggeh]

MerinTB wrote...
Following the common analogy use of "gold standard" for games...

Halo, for many people, after it's release became a gold standard for FPS that other FPS would be compared to.  Does Call of Duty fail in comparison because there are no energy rifles and you can't drive vehicles and you don't fight aliens?
NO.

So comparing other RPGs to Baludr's Gate does not require the other RPGs to use 2nd ED D&D rules, to have six member parties that you make one character but recruit up to five others, takes place in the Forgotten Realms...

Anyone making that argument doens't truly understand the difference between "comparing" and "equating."

I believe that's much the point that Maria was making. It's often specific features that by omission decrease DA2's "BGness"

[upsettingshorts]

/grabs popcorn

//enjoys a semantic debate that he isn't smack dab in the middle of - for once

[AtreiyaN7]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...


Thats all well and good but you're missing the point I'm trying to get across, they keep trying to sell the idea that the 3 skus are seperate development. If that is indeed the case why would the tactical camera on the PC not be as full featured as in Origins? That factor really doesn't sit well with me as theres no logical reason why it would need to stay fixed on a character, or be more limited in zoom.

It seems to partially be a matter of art direction as stated previously - I don't believe there's any logical reason for them to lie about developing it on three platforms simulatenously. Now it's all well and good to laugh at the issue of ceilings and the camera, and everyone's free to disagree about the merits of them and/or lighting fixtures or whatever else, but I think that as part of a full environment within a building, one would really expect to see, well, ceilings. In FO:NV, if I look up, it might not be exciting, but I can see a ceiling if I'm in a building or the sky outside, or a giant tower with a satellite dish, mountains, etc.

As innocuous and pointless as the ceilings might seem, I suspect that some people might find that the environment feels more complete with them in, but really, it beats me. I would like to stress that I don't care whether there are ceilings or not, but I can see the reasoning for them being there. After all, some people think the ephemera you find in dungeons (like casks of ale, strings of pepper, cheese, etc.) counts toward making the environments richer. It depends on individual tastes.

Maybe what works for some people is seeing chandeliers.  If they decided that they want the ceilings in, then my guess is that they can't use the same kind of tactical overhead view with all that stuff in the way. I can only speculate about that. My occupation is book designer, not world designer unofrtunately - heh. Maybe a dev will pop in and elaborate.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 19 novembre 2010 - 05:48 .

[Leonia]

I like cheese. Not because it is like other foods but because it is simply delicious.