934 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Possibly. Mass Effect never felt like a 'traditional' RPG to me. ME 2 seemed to just drop the pretense that it was just as much an RPG as other BioWare games.

I don't see much difference at all between ME and ME2 in terms of RPG-ness.  I don't really understand why other people do.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The only thing you've lost is the ability to change their outfit. That's it.

If the game instead say, locked your character as mage only and didn't allow you to pick any other then you could also say "the only thing you've lost is the ability to choose your class. You can still develop and specialize your character".

Technically that would be correct too. But let's be honest, both these statements underplay the impact such change might have on enjoyment of some players.

[the_one_54321]

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Right because you can't decide anything about your character if you can't have those options available. I forgot about that rule. We all play default male Hawke. I guess I missed that one.

Given the "reasoning" Bioware offered up for stripping out those options, why not? If you cut the rest of the superfluous junk out they could have focussed on the story even moar!!!

Entirely true. Because the stories are what they are best at. But hey, they know their fans like to customize their characters, so they kept a bunch of that in the game. And the fans are being just so gracious.

[haberman13]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Possibly. Mass Effect never felt like a 'traditional' RPG to me. ME 2 seemed to just drop the pretense that it was just as much an RPG as other BioWare games.

I don't see much difference at all between ME and ME2 in terms of RPG-ness.  I don't really understand why other people do.

Less choice, removal of XP, addition of loading screens (immersion loss), no loots (unless you buy DLC)

etc. etc. etc.

ME2 was a great space opera, but a diversion from what most of us nerds would call RPG.

Argue the relativistic point that "it still exists, in some form" if you must.

Has anyone played Fable 3?  They took the ME/DA2 idea to the extreme, it isn't being well received.

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The only thing you've lost is the ability to change their outfit. That's it.

If the game instead say, locked your character as mage only and didn't allow you to pick any other then you could also say "the only thing you've lost is the ability to choose your class. You can still develop and specialize your character".

Technically that would be correct too. But let's be honest, both these statements underplay the impact such change might have on enjoyment of some players.

I disagree with you conjecture, but I find no fault in the notion that removing other such customizations shouldn't be viewed as a big deal. I know that a lot of the players here like to make choices about their character so I'm not about to argue that such things should be taken away. But what is actually misleading in this set of quotes is the notion that changing outfits is comparable to choosing class. One is purely visual and the other actually effects the mechanics of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

haberman13 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't see much difference at all between ME and ME2 in terms of RPG-ness.  I don't really understand why other people do.

Less choice

I didn't think either game featured much in the way of choice.

removal of XP

That was a good change, I thought, and one I've been asking for in CRPGs for years.  ME2 behaved more like a well-run tabletop RPG in terms of XP.

So yes, this was a change, but it gave ME2 more RPG-ness than ME had.

addition of loading screens (immersion loss), no loots (unless you buy DLC)

I don't think either of those is relevant.

[Drasanil]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Entirely true. Because the stories are what they are best at. But hey, they know their fans like to customize their characters, so they kept a bunch of that in the game.

The thing is they didn't, they cut out the ability to choose your race and backround which are a big part of defining who and what your character is. As far as I'm concerned gender and class options are superfluous compared to the above, which means they haven't kept "a whole bunch" of customisation.

And the fans are being just so gracious.

Of course we are, after all they haven't really cut out anything, why shouldn't we be?

If you're going to have a story that requires a "fixed" character than might as well make a fixed character and do it properly as opposed to some highbrid approach which pretends it's not. 

[tmp7704]

Ulous wrote...

As I said earlier in the thread, people are not content with just offering up an opinion, they have to try putting weight behind the opinion with nonsense like "realism" and "simulation", even then they only use it when is suits their own personal preference.

Or it could be they aren't as much trying to put weight, but just explain why their preference goes this way and not another. "Because it feels more realistic" can be quite a good reason and may prompt the person into elaborating on why they think it's more realistic.

Because just offering opinions without any explanation seems pretty pointless -- "i like X" or "i don't like X" well, that can't be disputed and frankly no one cares. But explain why you like or don't like X, and that reasoning may actually spark a debate. As evidenced by million posts on practicality of wearing armour so far.

[Addai]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I disagree with you conjecture, but I find no fault in the notion that removing other such customizations shouldn't be viewed as a big deal. I know that a lot of the players here like to make choices about their character so I'm not about to argue that such things should be taken away. But what is actually misleading in this set of quotes is the notion that changing outfits is comparable to choosing class. One is purely visual and the other actually effects the mechanics of the game.

The point is that your priorities in the game are not necessarily everyone's.  You only care about being able to customize stats- fine.  But that is really only in your head.

[the_one_54321]

Drasanil wrote...
If you're going to have a story that requires a "fixed" character than might as well make a fixed character and do it properly as opposed to some highbrid approach which pretends it's not. 

I agree. But a lot of fans want to keep a number of the supefluous choices or else they'll end up and the doors to the Edmonton office with torches and pitchforks. So they tried to keep a lot of the superfluous choices.

[the_one_54321]

Addai67 wrote...
The point is that your priorities in the game are not necessarily everyone's.  You only care about being able to customize stats- fine.  But that is really only in your head.

... I see what you did there.

But no. Stats are not only in my head. Stats actually change the way the game plays. Combat. Coercion. Intimidation. Persuasion. Stealth. Traps. Locks.

What outfit a character is wearing doesn't effect how the game plays in the slightest.

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

Ulous wrote...
As I said earlier in the thread, people are not content with just offering up an opinion, they have to try putting weight behind the opinion with nonsense like "realism" and "simulation", even then they only use it when is suits their own personal preference.

Or it could be they aren't as much trying to put weight, but just explain why their preference goes this way and not another.

No, he's actually completely right. DA:O was 100% unrealistic, and so shall DA][ be 100% unrealistic. The application of "realism" is nothing but a strawman. There never was any to begin with.

[Archereon]

You know what's sad about this inventory debate?



Halo has more armor customization that Dragon Age 2 or mass effect 2, and more weapons than the latter.



Diablo has much more elaborate inventory than Dragon Age origins, and definitely will have more elaborate management than DA2.

[haberman13]

Lets be honest, classes and dialogue are superfulous. All that REALLY matters is pwning the hordes of darkspawn.

Cake is still good without frosting. This forum hates frosting, hates it!!!! Too sugary.

Prediction:  the same thing that led to Brittney in the music industry, will lead to the equivalent in the game industry.  DA2 is like The Backstreet Boys, they weren't the problem necessarily ... but they led to it.

Modifié par haberman13, 30 novembre 2010 - 08:03 .

[the_one_54321]

Any game can have an inventory system tacked on.

Any game can have a stat system tacked on.

Any game can have a deep story tacked on.

What's you point?

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
And you know what else? When people change their clothes, they usually wear garments appropiate to the way they plan to use their time! They don't go jogging in high heels! Amazing, isn't it?

They also tend to dress themselves. They don't go jogging in running shoes just because you tell them,and maybe one person is just a whackjob and likes running around in boots because that person feels cool or whatever.

That's the whole point of them being a real person. If they were going to do something outrageous like jogging in heels, that says something about who they are.

[Addai]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The point is that your priorities in the game are not necessarily everyone's.  You only care about being able to customize stats- fine.  But that is really only in your head.

... I see what you did there.

But no. Stats are not only in my head. Stats actually change the way the game plays. Combat. Coercion. Intimidation. Persuasion. Stealth. Traps. Locks.

What outfit a character is wearing doesn't effect how the game plays in the slightest.

The gameplay experience is about more than just what button to push.  Maybe it's hard to believe, but some of us don't sit around and crunch statistical numbers, or care that this weapon has 5% more crit chance than that one over there.

[Archereon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Ulous wrote...
As I said earlier in the thread, people are not content with just offering up an opinion, they have to try putting weight behind the opinion with nonsense like "realism" and "simulation", even then they only use it when is suits their own personal preference.

Or it could be they aren't as much trying to put weight, but just explain why their preference goes this way and not another.

No, he's actually completely right. DA:O was 100% unrealistic, and so shall DA][ be 100% unrealistic. The application of "realism" is nothing but a strawman. There never was any to begin with.

Really?  I was under the impression that gravity exists in Thedas, and for all intents and purposes, behaves like real world gravity.

While "realism" in
a fantasy game isn't all that important, internal consistency, and a
reasonable representation of mundane elements (for example, gravity)
that aren't deliberately stylized is.  To what extent mundane elements
should be stylized is the real debate here.

[haberman13]

Addai67 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The point is that your priorities in the game are not necessarily everyone's.  You only care about being able to customize stats- fine.  But that is really only in your head.

... I see what you did there.

But no. Stats are not only in my head. Stats actually change the way the game plays. Combat. Coercion. Intimidation. Persuasion. Stealth. Traps. Locks.

What outfit a character is wearing doesn't effect how the game plays in the slightest.

The gameplay experience is about more than just what button to push.  Maybe it's hard to believe, but some of us don't sit around and crunch statistical numbers, or care that this weapon has 5% more crit chance than that one over there.

No problem, 99% of games are developed for you!

[Apollo Starflare]

Drasanil wrote...

The thing is they didn't, they cut out the ability to choose your race and backround which are a big part of defining who and what your character is. As far as I'm concerned gender and class options are superfluous compared to the above, which means they haven't kept "a whole bunch" of customisation.

You do realise how many RPGs there have been (and will be) that don't let you choose your race or background, right? I'm not saying it wasn't a blow that I couldn't play as a Dwarf again, I think they're great, but it's hardly the end of the world and it doesn't mean that customisation won't be a big part of DA2.

[the_one_54321]

Addai67 wrote...
The gameplay experience is about more than just what button to push.  Maybe it's hard to believe, but some of us don't sit around and crunch statistical numbers, or care that this weapon has 5% more crit chance than that one over there.

And that's fine. I'm not saying you should like what they did. I'm saying that the whole "they have removed choice!!!!!!!" line of argument is complete nonsense.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

]I disagree with you conjecture, but I find no fault in the notion that removing other such customizations shouldn't be viewed as a big deal. I know that a lot of the players here like to make choices about their character so I'm not about to argue that such things should be taken away. But what is actually misleading in this set of quotes is the notion that changing outfits is comparable to choosing class. One is purely visual and the other actually effects the mechanics of the game.

I didn't say these two changes are comparable. Nor did i say that removing ability to choose class shouldn't be viewed as big deal.

What i did say was, claiming either of these changes isn't a big deal would require to intentionally ignore that to part of playerbase such change is in fact "a big deal" due to their individual preferences towards the element which is being removed. Something you admit yourself, when you say " I know that a lot of the players here like to make choices" etc.

[the_one_54321]

Archereon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
No, he's actually completely right. DA:O was 100% unrealistic, and so shall DA][ be 100% unrealistic. The application of "realism" is nothing but a strawman. There never was any to begin with.

Really?  I was under the impression that gravity exists in Thedas, and for all intents and purposes, behaves like real world gravity.

While "realism" in
a fantasy game isn't all that important, internal consistency, and a
reasonable representation of mundane elements (for example, gravity)
that aren't deliberately stylized is.  To what extent mundane elements
should be stylized is the real debate here.

Interesting that you bring that up. Actually, gravity doesn't exist in Thedas the way it exists as we understand gravity in real life. In Thedas you can enter The Fade where gravity seems to be subjectively random.

[Ryzaki]

You can't be that thickheaded. It may be a choice you don't care for but it's still a choice.

[Addai]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The gameplay experience is about more than just what button to push.  Maybe it's hard to believe, but some of us don't sit around and crunch statistical numbers, or care that this weapon has 5% more crit chance than that one over there.

And that's fine. I'm not saying you should like what they did. I'm saying that the whole "they have removed choice!!!!!!!" line of argument is complete nonsense.

In Origins we could change companion armors and now we can't.  They have removed that choice.  How important you find that is relative, naturally.