333 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

StingingVelvet wrote...

With Dragon Age though the game was not a hybrid, it was a pure RPG, a tactical RPG in the same style as older CRPGs.  If you modify it into an action game or whatever then you are changing what the game fundamentally IS.  It's a much bigger deal, a much less understandable deal, and that is why so many people are freaked out about it.

I'd argue that despite what Bioware developers and marketing might say, DA:2 is not an action RPG.  They claim DA:O was an action RPG as well, and I'd dispute that too.  Essentially what I can gather from their perspective is that "action RPG" is a marketing phrase - an idea meant to convey that the game is fluid or dynamic and responsive in graphics and presentation.  It doesn't seem to have any real meaning beyond that. 

Put another way, I really don't think Bioware is doing anything of the kind - changing what it fundamentally is - they're just using a term like "action RPG" to frame the marketing in a way that they feel will be beneficial to sales.

[Pugnate]

It is quite possible that this is mere marketing. After all, the this is the new **** trailer really sent our knickers in a twist for DA:O.

Having said that, it isn't only just "marketing" that is sending off the alarm bells for DA2. Actual changes that have been announced and confirmed haven't been comforting either.

Modifié par Pugnate, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:04 .

[StingingVelvet]

Dave of Canada wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

With Dragon Age though the game was not a hybrid, it was a pure RPG, a tactical RPG in the same style as older CRPGs.  If you modify it into an action game or whatever then you are changing what the game fundamentally IS.  It's a much bigger deal, a much less understandable deal, and that is why so many people are freaked out about it.

Aside from Iso View and faster animations (assuming animations count as gameplay, the majority of the forums believe they do), shouldn't the play the same? Hell, Dragon Age: Origins was advertised as an Action RPG too with"Bone-Crushing, Visceral Combat".

Well I said IF and even capitalized it

People are worried, is what I am saying.  I would bet that when we finally see some gameplay of the PC version a lot of people, not everyone because that's impossible but a lot of people, will breathe a sigh of relief.

[KalDurenik]

Me sad :'( every time they post / show anything. I get less hyped. Its like Bioware is trying very hard to make me not buy the game.

[upsettingshorts]

KalDurenik wrote...

Me sad :'( every time they post / show anything. I get less hyped. Its like Bioware is trying very hard to make me not buy the game.

Did you read the thread?  The preview is chock full of nonsense.

[KalDurenik]

Im talking about overall every preview out there. Not only this one. Even the dev comments.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PCG wrote...

Whereas a rogue walled in by Darkspawn in Origins would be screwed, someone like Isabela can just backflip out of there.

This specific example is one area where it's now possible to escape from positions you put yourself in through bad planning.

I do hope that not all such scenarios are now escapable.  I'd like my planning in combat to be worthwhile, and not just completely extraneous.

[Heavenblade]

No plan survives first contact with the enemy, except in the world of predictable enemy behavior. On a not-as-related note, I'm glad that things are faster and more actiony. The snail's pace combat and animations in DA:O were one of the biggest turn offs for me. Keep in mind that I don't even play games like Gears of War or Modern Warfare! (Unless ME counts)

[Cro5S]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

PCG wrote...

Whereas a rogue walled in by Darkspawn in Origins would be screwed, someone like Isabela can just backflip out of there.

This specific example is one area where it's now possible to escape from positions you put yourself in through bad planning.

I do hope that not all such scenarios are now escapable.  I'd like my planning in combat to be worthwhile, and not just completely extraneous.

I also hope to B-Boy out of any situation at hand, be pretty impressive pulling of some pole dancing moves to stun and paralyze the Quanari 

[nightcobra]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

PCG wrote...

Whereas a rogue walled in by Darkspawn in Origins would be screwed, someone like Isabela can just backflip out of there.

This specific example is one area where it's now possible to escape from positions you put yourself in through bad planning.

I do hope that not all such scenarios are now escapable.  I'd like my planning in combat to be worthwhile, and not just completely extraneous.

you won't be able to spam it since like all talents it has a cooldown time so even evading has to be used sparingly.

[Monica83]

Bha more i hear less i want it.... *i miss the old bioware*

[Gleym]

Sadly, Monica, Bioware is now part of the EA family. That means money and large target audiences take precedence over old values. To be honest, I'm kinda surprised that it took this long to start seeing the effects of EA'bola.

[The Masked Rog]

Moey and large audiences always took precedence to niche markets. Do you really think old BioWare wanted their games to sell less than they want now?

[Ziggeh]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Moey and large audiences always took precedence to niche markets. Do you really think old BioWare wanted their games to sell less than they want now?

They used to be a charity.

[Slayer299]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Moey and large audiences always took precedence to niche markets. Do you really think old BioWare wanted their games to sell less than they want now?

Well, of course they want their games to sell. But considering that Bioware was known for the quality of their games, it seems depressing to be called a 'niche market' when cRPG's were how Bioware made their name (Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate 2) or are you saying that PC games are a niche market? 

[Gleym]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Moey and large audiences always took precedence to niche markets. Do you really think old BioWare wanted their games to sell less than they want now?

Not at all. I think old Bioware wanted to make games that they knew RPG gamers would love, thus ensuring their sales. They worked on the foundations of 'quality means success'. Not 'target audience equals money'.

Want a good example of someone who went far on quality and caring about making a game that RPG lovers would enjoy, and not on who they could sell to best? The guys behind The Witcher. Small-time company in Poland, with minor backing and using Bioware's Aurora engine from their Neverwinter Nights days, came out of nowhere and swept through the market with a brilliant game. They weren't concerned with numbers, they only cared about making a game that they themselves as RPG fans could say 'this is a game I'd want to play'. Bioware used to be like that too. These days, it doesn't feel like it.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[upsettingshorts]

That's the egocentrism kicking in.  "Bioware no longer makes games that I - obviously a representative of cRPG fans at large - enjoy, they must be targeting some other, vague audience."  I don't get as much of a sense of this from you as I do others, but it's still the same theme.  I must stress that I'm not so much in this post trying to call you out, but to address how I feel in general about posts similar to yours that make related cases with regards to this new Bioware versus old Bioware, including but not limited to their acquisition by Electronic Arts.

I've been playing Bioware games as long as anyone, and the changes in Mass Effect 1-2, Origins, and Dragon Age 2 on balance strike me as positive evolutions.  Does that make me part of the cRPG niche?  The new target audience?  How can we account for this?  My answer is to not assume such a false dichotomy exists.  There are deeply divided approaches to cRPGs that have evolved organically over time, and rather than being the result of new features or developments, have always existed and are simply being exposed in polarizing fashion. 

The old audience wasn't as monolothic or dogmatic in their tastes or approaches as many of us had assumed.  Nor do I think blaming each new feature change on some tactic to acquire a vague new audience whose tastes, preferences, and relative level of intelligence vary based on what kind of accusation the poster is making.  People who do not play cRPGs are not a some homogenous horde composed of whatever foul combination of heresy would approve of the feature being attacked, either.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:15 .

[Gleym]

You call it egocentrism, I call it 'I know what a Bioware cRPG plays like, and this ain't it.' And if it isn't it, and the result is a rift between consumer bases between people like you who absolutely love the change, and people like me who preferred the old representation of cRPGs, how is that anything but a step backwards in terms of game-design when both sides used to enjoy the previous ones?

And I like how you seem to think that because I do not agree with you and hold a certain view on the matter, and consider it at least somewhat viable and confirmed by events, that I am deluded into thinking that I'm "obviously a representative of cRPG fans at large." So what, does that make you the representative of 'what a true fan of cRPGs should be like' just because you are convinced of one thing like I am?

To claim that I am being egocentric, and then making an egocentric accusation of your own, based on your disagreement, is as bad as any false dichotomy in my opinion. I do not care whether certain new consumers come from a shooter crowd, or an RTS crowd. I actually welcome all sorts. What I do not approve of is the idea that something I enjoy, has to be converted to suit the tastes of others, only to have to watch it converted further, and further away from its original ideal until it is something that only caters to the needs of new consumers, with any complaint of it being brushed aside as 'monolothic' and being told 'geez, stop being such a downer. We love it, so you should too!'

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[The Masked Rog]

Gleym wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

Moey and large audiences always took precedence to niche markets. Do you really think old BioWare wanted their games to sell less than they want now?

Not at all. I think old Bioware wanted to make games that they knew RPG gamers would love, thus ensuring their sales. They worked on the foundations of 'quality means success'. Not 'target audience equals money'.

Want a good example of someone who went far on quality and caring about making a game that RPG lovers would enjoy, and not on who they could sell to best? The guys behind The Witcher. Small-time company in Poland, with minor backing and using Bioware's Aurora engine from their Neverwinter Nights days, came out of nowhere and swept through the market with a brilliant game. They weren't concerned with numbers, they only cared about making a game that they themselves as RPG fans could say 'this is a game I'd want to play'. Bioware used to be like that too. These days, it doesn't feel like it.

I find that idea a bit strange. Do you really think the poured whathever inane quantity of money was needed to make that game in the project with no intention of making a profit? They obviously thought the game would sell well. They went actiony because of it, right? Dragon Age 2 would be looking less for profit, since it still mantains most of the "hardcore" features that TW never had. Like auto attack and no combos, for example. I always find it funny when The Witcher, an iminently actiony RPG (not that I mind it, I think people seem to think that games shouldn't strive to be fun, but rather complex) is compared to what DA2 should be by those who despise action rpgs.

[upsettingshorts]

Gleym wrote...

You call it egocentrism, I call it 'I know what a Bioware cRPG plays like, and this ain't it.' And if it isn't it, and the result is a rift between consumer bases between people like you who absolutely love the change, and people like me who preferred the old representation of cRPGs, how is that anything but a step backwards in terms of game-design when both sides used to enjoy the previous ones?

It's egocentrism when the accusation of the change being the result of targeting a new audience, because of the implication that the old audience shares your position. 

As far as it being a step backwards, I disagree.  It's a step forward that has a polarizing result.  I wouldn't want to go back to the "old ways" because I prefer the new features, on balance.  From where I sit, the older games were good for their time, and would be decent bordering on unacceptable now.  That's why it's polarizing.

Gleym wrote...

And I like how you seem to think that because I do not agree with you and hold a certain view on the matter, and consider it at least somewhat viable and confirmed by events, that I am deluded into thinking that I'm "obviously a representative of cRPG fans at large." So what, does that make you the representative of 'what a true fan of cRPGs should be like' just because you are convinced of one thing like I am?

That's not what I think.  There are plenty of people on this forum who disagree with my preferences completely who do not go to the "Bioware isn't the same company" well, or the "Bioware is selling out" well, or the "Bioware is obviously being butchered by EA and made to appeal to mouth breathers" well.  That is, in my view, the implication of each and every one of those arguments.  

Gleym wrote...

To claim that I am being egocentric, and then making an egocentric accusation of your own, based on your disagreement, is as bad as any false dichotomy in my opinion.

I'm not sure how they're the same.  It's not a disagreement over the substance of our opinions regarding game features, but a disagreement over what I feel is a bad argument based on a faulty, self-serving premise.  I wouldn't have a single problem with any argument that addresses the pros and cons of a particular feature or change, what tends to get me riled up is ones similar to yours.  It's irritatingly dismissive. 

Gleym wrote...

What I do not approve of is the idea that something I enjoy, has to be converted to suit the tastes of others, only to have to watch it converted further, and further away from its original ideal until it is something that only caters to the needs of
new consumers, with any complaint of it being brushed aside as 'monolothic' and being told 'geez, stop being such a downer. We love it, so you should too!'

That isn't what I was saying with that section.

Your opinions and your disapproval are fine and I take no issue with them whatsoever.  The source of my objection is the comment that Bioware has changed as a company, and the changes are the result of a scheme to abandon a "monolithic" idea of what a cRPG is "supposed" to be.  Your idea of what a cRPG is supposed to be isn't the issue, the issue is the implication that Bioware - and indeed its old school fans - were by definition operating under the same notions as you.  The idea that they are a new Bioware (meddled by EA or not) targeting a new audience relies on the assumption that there were roots to abandon in the first place, and whenever these arguments come up, the nature of those roots changes a little bit to suit the preferences of the person making the argument.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:32 .

[Gleym]

The Masked Rog wrote...

I find that idea a bit strange.
Do you really think the poured whathever inane quantity of money was
needed to make that game in the project with no intention of making a
profit? They obviously thought the game would sell well. They went
actiony because of it, right? Dragon Age 2 would be looking less for
profit, since it still mantains most of the "hardcore" features that TW
never had. Like auto attack and no combos, for example. I always find
it funny when The Witcher, an iminently actiony RPG (not that I mind
it, I think people seem to think that games shouldn't strive to be fun,
but rather complex) is compared to what DA2 should be by those who
despise action rpgs.

The Witcher is an RPG because it functions like an RPG. It doesn't contain watered down RPG elements, and as far as 'action' goes, it's all in the animations. The most 'action'y that the combat system gets is that you need to time your clicks, otherwise it plays exactly like any other previous cRPG by Bioware, like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale.

EDIT: And now I'm stuck with two people to deal with on seperate fronts. Sublime.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:30 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

You missed the point Upsettingshorts.



The games Bioware now produces are completely different from the games they used to make. That has nothing to do with egocentrism or something, it's a fact. Nobody denies that there were good changes, just imagine Baldur's Gate with a modern AI, wouldn't that be awesome?



Mass Effect 1 and 2 and, very likely, Dragon Age 2 have nothing in common with the "good old" Bioware games that changed the entire genre. We see the exact opposite now: Bioware makes heavily streamlined games. This is, very likely, EA's fault as they are known for that course. Is Bioware to blame for this? No, not alone at least. That's how video games simply work nowadays.



A developer makes good games, has success, a big publisher buys the studio, games get streamlined, $$$.



Simply do the same I realized recently: divide Bioware games in 2 eras. The first era being the "RPG era" with gems like Baldur's Gate and the second, current era, the "EA era" where Bioware still is a good producer, but not the outstanding one they used to be. They still produce good games and DA2 will be a good game as well, but it won't be an outstanding, genre-changing game.



In the end, what is the main factor that made DA so successful?



Easy: David Gaider. As much as I do not like his posting style, he is a great writer. DA did not have remarkable graphics, the balance was a mess, the combats were a joke because of the low difficulty, quite a few characters were bland / one-dimensional (Morrigan!). So what kept us going? The story. The excellent, interesting story; the HN origin alone was a blast and truly masterful writing.



So, this being said, Bioware has changed. Do not expect them to make the same games they used to, they won't. If you do not like their current course, remember them for once being a great, outstanding developer and play some Baldur's Gate again, if you still like their games - awesome, have fun with them and don't listen to everyone who wants to talk them down.



In the end, it all boils down to if you have fun. And if you have - do not care for what the others say

[Ziggeh]

Gleym wrote...

'I know what a Bioware cRPG plays like, and this ain't it.'

Erm, hate to nitpick and all, but surely Bioware decides what a Bioware prg plays like? What with them being Bioware and all.

[The Masked Rog]

Gleym wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...

I find that idea a bit strange.
Do you really think the poured whathever inane quantity of money was
needed to make that game in the project with no intention of making a
profit? They obviously thought the game would sell well. They went
actiony because of it, right? Dragon Age 2 would be looking less for
profit, since it still mantains most of the "hardcore" features that TW
never had. Like auto attack and no combos, for example. I always find
it funny when The Witcher, an iminently actiony RPG (not that I mind
it, I think people seem to think that games shouldn't strive to be fun,
but rather complex) is compared to what DA2 should be by those who
despise action rpgs.

The Witcher is an RPG because it functions like an RPG. It doesn't contain watered down RPG elements, and as far as 'action' goes, it's all in the animations. The most 'action'y that the combat system gets is that you need to time your clicks, otherwise it plays exactly like any other previous cRPG by Bioware, like Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale.

EDIT: And now I'm stuck with two people to deal with on seperate fronts. Sublime.

Actually I thought a lot of things were watered down in the Witcher. Not that I mind it, for me simple games are the best, including RPGs. But I do not want to stress you, so I am logging out of this discussion.

[Gleym]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Actually I thought a lot of things were watered down in the Witcher. Not that I mind it, for me simple games are the best, including RPGs. But I do not want to stress you, so I am logging out of this discussion.

It was different from, say, a classic DnD cRPG like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights were, but what set it up to the same standard was the same. I still felt like I had the same amount of range and quality of RPG in the Witcher as I did in any of those other games. Which brings me to..

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Gleym wrote...

'I know what a Bioware cRPG plays like, and this ain't it.'

Erm, hate to nitpick and all, but surely Bioware decides what a Bioware prg plays like? What with them being Bioware and all.

So if Pixar suddenly had a change of management and started making movies below their usual standard of quality and in a different direction, it'd still be considered what would be defined as a 'Pixar movie'? If a restaurant used to have a kitchen full of master chefs who took the time to meticulously prepare dishes unparalleled, only to come under new management and their methods being altered, causing the quality of the dishes to change and become unlike what they used to, would that still be defined as that's restaurant's standard of dining?

It's about what makes something the basic standard of quality in a game. Just because you slap Bioware's name on it, doesn't mean it will neccesarily be a game of Bioware's standard if contrasted to their previous award winners. And that's what the case tends to be these days. They make good games, most certainly, but are they on the same level as their previous releases? Call it egocentrism if you absolutely must, but in my eyes it isn't the case.

Modifié par Gleym, 01 décembre 2010 - 03:43 .