343 réponses à ce sujet

[Nighteye2]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...
for me, time has not been too kind to the BG series. as far as plot and characters go the quality is still there but the gameplay is now to me very dated seriously limiting my enjoyment.

Well, I decided to fire it up again a couple of weeks ago and so far I'm finding it enjoyable.

I also still enjoy many old games, including NES games more than 2 decades old. Fun game concepts often remain fun for a very long time, if not forever.

I am not against using new technology to try and make something better than BG2 - but improvements should remain true to the core of the genre. Improvements should serve to increase player agency, to draw players deeper into the game world and to make the gameworld more interactive.

If you use technology to create artificial distance between the player and his/her character, you're going the wrong way.

[The Masked Rog]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...
for me, time has not been too kind to the BG series. as far as plot and characters go the quality is still there but the gameplay is now to me very dated seriously limiting my enjoyment.

Well, I decided to fire it up again a couple of weeks ago and so far I'm finding it enjoyable.

I also still enjoy many old games, including NES games more than 2 decades old. Fun game concepts often remain fun for a very long time, if not forever.

I am not against using new technology to try and make something better than BG2 - but improvements should remain true to the core of the genre. Improvements should serve to increase player agency, to draw players deeper into the game world and to make the gameworld more interactive.

If you use technology to create artificial distance between the player and his/her character, you're going the wrong way.

Not necessarily. If you create some distance between the player and his character in order to deliver, for example, better cinematics or a premade personality, you are not going the wrong way, but rather a different way. A way I'd personally enjoy more. Not everyone would enjoy it, of course, but that is a given with any game design philosophy.

[Monica83]

Masked baldurs gate its defined a miliar stone of crpg (i agree with night 100%) let's keep rpg games rpg

Cinematics its nice when fit to roleplay if you puchase a roleplay game only to see cinematics and voice dialogues again you are not searching for an rpg...

When i want to play an rpg i want to play an rpg..

If i want a title that makes cinematics the strong point of the game well i watch a DVD sorry

Modifié par Monica83, 26 novembre 2010 - 12:28 .

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meaning the crowd that wants a game just like BG? Not being interested in them has got nothing to do with Gaider's superiors. I mean, why would anyone want to cater to you lot?

Because we have excellent taste and spare money?

Excellent taste? Hardly. BG was OK for its time, but Bio's doing a lot of things better these days.

Yet the best thing they've done since then is DA:O, which they saw as "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor". And they're deviating from that.

[Nighteye2]

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Meaning the crowd that wants a game just like BG? Not being interested in them has got nothing to do with Gaider's superiors. I mean, why would anyone want to cater to you lot?

Because we have excellent taste and spare money?

Excellent taste? Hardly. BG was OK for its time, but Bio's doing a lot of things better these days.

Yet the best thing they've done since then is DA:O, which they saw as "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor". And they're deviating from that.

Unfortunately.

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

Masked baldurs gate its defined a miliar stone of crpg (i agree with night 100%) let's keep rpg games rpg

Cinematics its nice when fit to roleplay if you puchase a roleplay game only to see cinematics and voice dialogues again you are not searching for an rpg...

When i want to play an rpg i want to play an rpg..

If i want a title that makes cinematics the strong point of the game well i watch a DVD sorry

So you don't like cinematic RPGs. That's fine. You contest that they are even rpg. That's also fine, though you quite clearly play as a character, and have control over him. But it is the game BioWare is making, and that isn't going to change, lucklily for me, unfortunately for others. I hope you can find a game which suits you better, but I personally hope BioWare never returns to the days of BGI&II.

[Xewaka]

The Masked Rog wrote...

So you don't like cinematic RPGs. That's fine. You contest that they are even rpg. That's also fine, though you quite clearly play as a character, and have control over him. But it is the game BioWare is making, and that isn't going to change, lucklily for me, unfortunately for others. I hope you can find a game which suits you better, but I personally hope BioWare never returns to the days of BGI&II.

Yet returning to that days was what inspired Dragon Age to be.

[The Masked Rog]

Xewaka wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

So you don't like cinematic RPGs. That's fine. You contest that they are even rpg. That's also fine, though you quite clearly play as a character, and have control over him. But it is the game BioWare is making, and that isn't going to change, lucklily for me, unfortunately for others. I hope you can find a game which suits you better, but I personally hope BioWare never returns to the days of BGI&II.

Yet returning to that days was what inspired Dragon Age to be.

Dragon Age: Origins. And they never intended to return to the days of BGII completely. They still went cinematic, they still went voiced NPCs, they made an effort to simplify the gameplay mechanics.
But we are not talking about Origins. This is DA2 and they started leaving their past successes behinf and focusing on making the game they went, with simple gameplay mechanics and innovative story telling. I personally welcome the change.

[FedericoV]

JPR1964 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Having said that, I would contest the notion of DA:O being a game with depth. Yep, it was complex but complexity it's not the same as depth (not allways). In my opinion DA:O's artificial complexity covered its missing depth. DA:O was a pretty flat game in term of intellectual challenge. Writing, storytelling and NPC characterization, saved its not so great gameplay.

Depth don't mean "intellectual challenge"...

If I follow you : mass effect 2 has absolutely no depth at all, and for what I have tested of DA2 , no depth too...

I don't  see any depth at all in any action game... Fun is another story...

If you would have seen the article linked by the OP you would understand my point. We do not know if DA2 will have depth or not. Can't judge the depth of a game from a demo. I've only said that I hope that DA2 will aim for accessible depth and that if it's not the case at least I will enjoy the story.

About ME2: I do not see any reference to that game in my post so I do not understand your point a lot. In my opinion, ME2 has more depth than ME1 in terms of gameplay and less in terms of story/quest design (even if I believe that the presentation of the story and the writing was way better than the original).

[ejoslin]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Masked baldurs gate its defined a miliar stone of crpg (i agree with night 100%) let's keep rpg games rpg

Cinematics its nice when fit to roleplay if you puchase a roleplay game only to see cinematics and voice dialogues again you are not searching for an rpg...

When i want to play an rpg i want to play an rpg..

If i want a title that makes cinematics the strong point of the game well i watch a DVD sorry

So you don't like cinematic RPGs. That's fine. You contest that they are even rpg. That's also fine, though you quite clearly play as a character, and have control over him. But it is the game BioWare is making, and that isn't going to change, lucklily for me, unfortunately for others. I hope you can find a game which suits you better, but I personally hope BioWare never returns to the days of BGI&II.

well, you could say the same thing about mario brothers 3 -- you're playing as a character and have control over him.  Many people argue over what RPGs are, but this is a terrible definition.

Why do you hope BW never makes a game like BG1&2 again, though?  Many people enjoy that kind of game; why should you care if they make it?  YOU don't have to buy it, after all.  Given DAO's success, it seems a lot of people would buy it.

[The Masked Rog]

ejoslin wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Masked baldurs gate its defined a miliar stone of crpg (i agree with night 100%) let's keep rpg games rpg

Cinematics its nice when fit to roleplay if you puchase a roleplay game only to see cinematics and voice dialogues again you are not searching for an rpg...

When i want to play an rpg i want to play an rpg..

If i want a title that makes cinematics the strong point of the game well i watch a DVD sorry

So you don't like cinematic RPGs. That's fine. You contest that they are even rpg. That's also fine, though you quite clearly play as a character, and have control over him. But it is the game BioWare is making, and that isn't going to change, lucklily for me, unfortunately for others. I hope you can find a game which suits you better, but I personally hope BioWare never returns to the days of BGI&II.

well, you could say the same thing about mario brothers 3 -- you're playing as a character and have control over him.  Many people argue over what RPGs are, but this is a terrible definition.

You have no control over Mario. You can go one way, and that's the way you go. No dialogues, no choosing what to say or do, no picking skills, no talking to companions, etc... You do exactly what the developer meant you to do. In DA:O you also do as the devs meant you to do, but there is a illusion of choice. But I'm not going to argue about RPG defenitions and I don't see how any one is entitled to call another's definition terrible.

Why do you hope BW never makes a game like BG1&2 again, though?  Many people enjoy that kind of game; why should you care if they make it?  YOU don't have to buy it, after all.  Given DAO's success, it seems a lot of people would buy it.

Because I like the games they're making now and would prefer they focused on it'? I wouldn't be upset if they decided to make a game like BGII though, and I certainly wouldn't be all over the forum complaining it wasn't a cinematic experience. I'd just not buy it, and I'd prefer if they made it more in line with their recent masterpieces.

[FedericoV]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

So you don't like cinematic RPGs. That's fine. You contest that they are even rpg. That's also fine, though you quite clearly play as a character, and have control over him. But it is the game BioWare is making, and that isn't going to change, lucklily for me, unfortunately for others. I hope you can find a game which suits you better, but I personally hope BioWare never returns to the days of BGI&II.

Yet returning to that days was what inspired Dragon Age to be.

Dragon Age: Origins. And they never intended to return to the days of BGII completely. They still went cinematic, they still went voiced NPCs, they made an effort to simplify the gameplay mechanics.
But we are not talking about Origins. This is DA2 and they started leaving their past successes behinf and focusing on making the game they went, with simple gameplay mechanics and innovative story telling. I personally welcome the change.

Personally, I like both kind of games and I do not think that it's impossible to design a game with good cinematics/storytelling and tactical gameplay. They are not mutually esclusive. But you are right: Bioware is not interested in that kind of games anymore. And all the whining in the world won't change their position for the current moment.  Players can choose to enjoy or not DA2, but complaints about what is or not an RPG/BG spiritual successor won't change the nature of Bioware's current design philosophy, since they have never been so successfull (ME2 goty anyone?).

Having said that, I do not find a lot of similarities between DA:O and BG in terms of gameplay. I see more differences than similarities. It seems to me that many players are exagerating the meaning of DA:O's initial marketing campaign. Let's analize both games (DA:O and BG) for every single feature and we will realize that the spiritual successor thing was mostly marketing.

[Xewaka]

The Masked Rog wrote...
Dragon Age: Origins. And they never intended to return to the days of BGII completely. They still went cinematic, they still went voiced NPCs, they made an effort to simplify the gameplay mechanics.

You still had a party-based tactical approach. Your character was a blank slate, with a vey high degree of customization. Your character was voiceless. Gameplay mechanics weren't simplified, they created a new system. The feeling the game give was very much a callback to the old school.

The Masked Rog wrote...
But we are not talking about Origins. This is DA2 and they started leaving their past successes behind and focusing on making the game they went, with simple gameplay mechanics and innovative story telling. I personally welcome the change.

Let's see. Simple gameplay mechanics usually mean a boring and repetitive gameplay, because simple means less options, and less options means lose of replayability. If you reffered to the less customizable companions, notice the point about less options before.
If by innovative storytelling you mean the framed narrative device, I might recommend you check "The Princess Bride" film; if you mean the Dialogue Wheel, then not only it's not innovative, but it's a stepback. It allows less control over you character.

So far, the best selling point DA:2 has over DA:O is that they seem to be improving tooltips information. Maybe now I'll be able to tell how much damage does a spell or ability actually do without field testing of modding.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

Yet the best thing they've done since then is DA:O, which they saw as "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor". And they're deviating from that.

Mass Effect was the spiritual successor of KoTOR. The term is just marketing nonsense.

Not to mention that it's not even clear what anyone really liked about BG and BGII and what the devs liked.

[turian councilor Knockout]

JPR1964 wrote...

turian councilor Knockout wrote...


I do get your point of view but things can still change and i agree that no race selection, shorter playtime and the removal of for example dual wield sucks but i don't that think that Bioware will make a mediocre sequel to a fantastic first game.

I meant improvements in Mass effect 2 since dragon age 2 is not out yet .
ME 2 have better classes,squadmates, combat, characters, more exploration and animations to name a few improvements.

Huh?

Mass effect 2 has streamlined classes with less diversification : some have main power useless past normal difficulty...

Squadmate : we have more choices, but less diversification too...

combat : shoot and duck are in my opinion, not an improvement...

more exploration ??? That 's a joke, no? Small map, small cities, corridor worlds all the way... You need the firewalker pack to have some REAL exploration.

And I don't want start talking about the losses...

br,

JPR

Squadmates: they are more interesting and will reveal a lot more about themselves (greater background story)

Exploration: I mean with firewalker pack and there is many N7 missions as well (i don't really remember how many N7 missions ME 1 have).

Combat: Yes, there are still the cover system but it is greatly improved, classes are more fun and better whether you agree or not and powers aren't useless on higher than veteran difficulty because of enemy protection, okay some powers is useless until you stripped protection but not all.

Now we get back to the topic !

[The Masked Rog]

DA2 doesn't have the same degree of customization DA:O had. The character isn't a blank slate, nor is it voiceless, and it has an interesting background. The DA:O system was far more simple than anything they had previously done, excluding ME and JE.

There is a lot of fun to be had in simple. Complexity differs from non repetitive. Baldur's Gate combat was repetitive. Go for the mages, debuff the mages, kill the mages, click and watch as party slaughters intruders. The fun about systems like DA:O is in having a array of abilities and unleashing them upon your opponents, which is still in DA2, not the slow animations. Less customizable companions means companions with a much more defined personality, not because of their outfit, but because the player has no control over their inventory. The degree of control the p+layer had over the companions inventory in DA:O made them see less like unique individuals and more like someone who has a fleshed out personality but still dresses the way the player commands. The dialogue wheel is a step forward because it allows the conversation to flow more naturally, without having such long pauses to skim through all the options. I won't dispute (though I don't agree with the idea) that it allows less control over the character.~

DA2 selling points:
-Framed narrative (innovative != never before made)
-Dialogue Wheel with voiced protagonist.
-Faster combat, upgradeable abilities and less repeated ones.
-Better distinction between classes (static, if you will)
-Better graphics.

Modifié par The Masked Rog, 26 novembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Xewaka]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Less customizable companions means companions with a much more defined personality, not because of their outfit, but because the player has no control over their inventory. The degree of control the player had over the companions inventory in DA:O made them see less like unique individuals and more like someone who has a fleshed out personality but still dresses the way the player commands.

Honestly, if clothes are such an integral part of the character, if they need such visual distinction to stand off, then their personality is much shallower and undefined.

The Masked Rog wrote...
The dialogue wheel is a step forward because it allows the conversation to flow more naturally, without having such long pauses to skim through all the options. I won't dispute (though I don't agree with the idea) that it allows less control over the character.~

It takes me mote time to pick on the wheel than to pick on the text. Maybe it's because on the wheel, I have to triple-guess if the paraphrase actually means what I expect it to mean, and then reload the game when the wheel choice said whatever it wanted, rather than what I expected.

The Masked Rog wrote...
DA2 selling points:
-Framed narrative (innovative != never before made)
-Dialogue Wheel with voiced protagonist.
-Faster combat, upgradeable abilities and less repeated ones.
-Better distinction between classes (static, if you will)
-Better graphics.

The frame narrative I'll concede it makes for an intriguing idea. The rest, I see as drawbacks, or dispute their validity (as an example, the older design of the darkspawn looks better to me than the new one).

[mopotter]

DarthCaine wrote...

Meh, I play games for "fun". In more traditional RPGs like DAO and KOTOR, I always play on easy, 'cos the combat is my least favorite part of the game, and I play just for the story (though on Action RPGs I usually play on normal/hard)

I usually start on normal and then move down to easy and work my way back up.  Played DA on easy and normal.  I like the way BW does their game play.  I also play for fun.  Frustration just makes me want to throw something and that is usually costly.  <_<  Have gotten rid of games if they make me angry and frustrated.  

edited quotes

Modifié par mopotter, 27 novembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[hexaligned]

David Gaider wrote...

relhart wrote...

They aren't the lowest common denominator, they are average.


130+
Very superior
2.2%

120-129
Superior
6.7%

110-119
High average
16.1%

90-109
Average
50%

80-89
Low average
16.1%

70-79
Borderline
6.7%

Below 70
Extremely low
2.2%

IQ scores broken up by percentage of population. Obviously making a game that caters to people in the 90-120 range is going to appeal to the largest possible audience, (and presumably the highest sales) Mystery solved. DAO wasn't a hard game as it was, it certainly didn't have real strategic depth to it. I don't see DA2 as being much of a departure from that. (based on the little I have seen of it)  Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media being this way.

Seriously?

So the assumption is, evidently, that the more hardcore someone is the smarter they are? And the people who don't want a difficult game are therefore either average or dumb? And that, by extension, it's the smart people who are our more worthwhile customers?

I have no opinion on where game difficulty ends up-- gameplay is not my bailiwick-- but if you ask me it's opinions like this from the hardcore that make developers not regret making games more accessible in the slightest.

Hmm, no.  I didn't say anything about being "hardcore"  I don't consider myself such.  There isn't anything intrisically wrong with being average, and yes I feel (AAA) games are designed  for and marketed to the average persons tastes, doing anything else would be silly if you plan on recouping the millions they cost to make.   Also I'm not sure from what I said where you drew the connection between "smart" people being more worthwhile, (or me thinking they were).  I'm pretty sure I flat out stated myself they WEREN'T more worthwhile from a development position.   I'm used to supporting Indy companies for the type of games I prefer, (and I'm sure if they ever get successfull enough to try and branch out, they will start "streamlining" their games too.)  my point was people shouldn't be suprised a company like Bioware, that spends 10 of millions on development, isn't making games only a tiny percentage of the market is even going to be potentionaly interested in.

I'll chalk your assumptions up to Thanksgiving drunkenness this time Mr. Gaider....... this time.
Edit:  Oh wait you're a Canuck, that still explains it though I guess.
(Don't ban me... I'm a NYer, I can skip rocks across the lake at your country in retailiation)

Modifié par relhart, 26 novembre 2010 - 03:23 .

[In Exile]

Putting your inflamatory statement aside, what you are saying is not scientifically accurate. All IQ does is capture the speed and depth at which, broadly speaking, you can understand and then apply complex concepts. This has absolutely zero implication for taste.

The only claim you can make is that games wouldn't be designed to be so complex that they could only be understood by the top 2% of the population, but an actual preference for complexity has more to do with how much you like to learn and work at something, and that's independent from IQ.

[Ciryx]

relhart wrote...

Hmm, no.  I didn't say anything about being "hardcore"  I don't consider myself such.  There isn't anything intrisically wrong with being average, and yes I feel (AAA) games are designed  for and marketed to the average persons tastes, doing anything else would be silly if you plan on recouping the millions they cost to make.   Also I'm not sure from what I said where you drew the connection between "smart" people being more worthwhile, (or me thinking they were).  I'm pretty sure I flat out stated myself they WEREN'T more worthwhile from a development position.   I'm used to supporting Indy companies for the type of games I prefer, (and I'm sure if they ever get successfull enough to try and branch out, they will start "streamlining" their games too.)  my point was people shouldn't be suprised a company like Bioware, that spends 10 of millions on development, isn't making games only a tiny percentage of the market is even going to be potentionaly interested in.

I'll chalk your assumptions up to Thanksgiving drunkenness this time Mr. Gaider....... this time.
Edit:  Oh wait you're a Canuck, that still explains it though I guess.
(Don't ban me... I'm a NYer, I can skip rocks across the lake at your country in retailiation)

Forrest Gump exelled at the games he participated in cause he had an superior intellect, no? Even though thats a fictional story your argumentation is rather flawed. I dont know about you, but I for myself was an sponsored e-sport gamer and i pretty much can asure you that reaching the "skillcap" in a game, or playing a game with a high skillcap has not much to do with an "IQ". Some people show a talent for it and pick gamemechanics up rather fast, more so than others. Do they have an higher IQ? No, for sure they dont have. People are gifted in many differnt ways no IQ test could ever remotly cover.
There are, for example, very empathic people around that catch up on peronsal issues very fast and only through the slightest hints... and there are IQ test that would rank those kind of poeple very high. And would mark introverted geniuses as borderline dumb.
If you really are as smart as you think you are, I am sure you will understand that the difficulty of a game or its complexity are not developed with some kind of custumor IQ scale in head, but with the thought of entertainment and a "funfactor". Cause this is what games are and developed for: Entertainment that should make fun, regardless of any "IQ".

[Nerivant]

In Exile wrote...
The only claim you can make is that games wouldn't be designed to be so complex that they could only be understood by the top 2% of the population, but an actual preference for complexity has more to do with how much you like to learn and work at something, and that's independent from IQ.

And even then, depending on the manner in which the games are complex, a large portion of the top 2% could be unable to beat them. IQ is approximate, after all.

[hexaligned]

In Exile wrote...

Putting your inflamatory statement aside, what you are saying is not scientifically accurate. All IQ does is capture the speed and depth at which, broadly speaking, you can understand and then apply complex concepts. This has absolutely zero implication for taste.
The only claim you can make is that games wouldn't be designed to be so complex that they could only be understood by the top 2% of the population, but an actual preference for complexity has more to do with how much you like to learn and work at something, and that's independent from IQ.

Well maybe my logic is flawed in thinking people need to be (at least somewhat) stimulated  mentally from a game to be entertained.  I just know I do, pushing a button and watching explosions of flashy colors  and geysers of bood as I cruise effortlessly to the end credits doesn't do much for me (FF13 I'm looking at you).  
Yes, your assertion as to game complexity is what I meant, based again on my assumption people need to be challenged and stimualted to be entertained.   but I will concede you are correct, I threw out the chart, and emphasized "normal" as opposed to "idiotic" more as a contrast to the poster above my OP that was implying the formula for DA2 was changing to appeal to the "lowest common denominator"  which I saw as insulting to people who prefered it, I guess people feel the same way about being percieved as average though.  

Modifié par relhart, 26 novembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Nerivant]

relhart wrote...
Yes, your assertion as to game complexity is what I meant, based again on my assumption people need to be challenged and stimualted to be entertained.

I think this is where your theory fell apart. Some people are entertained by challenge, but a lot of people see it as a barrier keeping them from entertainment.

[In Exile]

relhart wrote..

Well maybe my logic is flawed in thinking people need to be (at least somewhat) stimulated  mentally from a game to be entertained.  I just know I do, pushing a button and watching explosions of flashy colors  and geysers of bood as I cruise effortlessly to the end credits doesn't do much for me (FF13 I'm looking at you). 

I need a game to be fun to be entertained. Just what precisely makes a game fun depends on the game. A multiplayer session of wii sports can be just as fun as Europa Universalis or Alpha Centauri.

Certainly a complicated game with a high learning curve can play a role in that, but only if you like that sort of thing in the first place.
 

Yes, your assertion as to game complexity is what I meant, based again on my assumption people need to be challenged and stimualted to be entertained.   but I will concede you are correct,I threw out the chart, and emphasized "normal" as opposed to "idiotic" more as a contrast to the poster above my OP that was implying the formula for DA2 was changing to appeal to the "lowest common denominator"  which I saw as insulting to people who prefered it, I guess people feel the same way about being percieved as average though.  

This was where you went wrong:

Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media
being this way.

If you avoided that (and, to be honest, the really obnoxious chart) and just made your point as you did here, i.e. that no one would market to the lowest common denominator because there aren't that many of them, just like no one markets video-games to Nobel laureates, you would have avoided this mess.