1079 réponses à ce sujet

[Graunt]

Xewaka wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David posted the above just before 1:00 am, Christmas morning (Edmonton time).
If you don't go to sleep, Santa won't come.

Meh. The three wise men are much better.

But if I can't have faith in Santa, how can I believe in other things?

Modifié par Graunt, 26 décembre 2010 - 05:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Felfenix wrote...

Halo sold a lot too. The fact it has a rubbish story didn't hold it back either. Apples and oranges. Bethesda and Bioware games are different. If I wanted Bethesda Dragon Age, well... I have that: Elder Scrolls.

Fallout 3  is much more like DAO than the Elder Scrolls is, in my option, due primarily to the introduction of VATS.  VATS allows pausable tactical gameplay is a way that TES never has, but DAO does throughout.

In Exile wrote...

DA2 can be our litmus, since among other things this is the first game to switch from one to the other.

I think DA2 is sufficiently different from DAO in other ways to confuse the data considerably.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

I hope in a later preview we will get info about our siblings. I really want to know what they are like.

[Graunt]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Fallout 3  is much more like DAO than the Elder Scrolls is, in my option, due primarily to the introduction of VATS.  VATS allows pausable tactical gameplay is a way that TES never has, but DAO does throughout.

VATS was implemented soley to appease people who hate it when FPS/TPS gameplay infringes on the RPG aspects.  The actual gunplay outside of VATS was pretty awful too until the second game, so that's another reason to use it.  It may have offered more of a "tactical" approach, but it was so miniscule that you may as well not even call it tactics when you literally used the same method for almost everything.  VATS headshot on practically everything or leg cripples on a Deathclaw. 

At least in the first game anyway, in F3NV you could literally run around hip-firing with the Gobi and kill just about everything, or just use the scope at a distance when it was "unsafe".  You could also just run up and explode the head off of a Deathclaw with a Ballistic fist, even on "Very Hard".  VATS was modified to be less powerful than it was before, but it was still plenty strong and the actual gunplay was greatly improved, even if it still doesn't reach "true" FPS/TPS levels of accuracy.

Back on topic; I enjoyed pretty much all of the RPGs Bioware have released, some much more than others.  In the end they usually always deliver a memorable experience, even if the game has a few or many "faults" within.  I for one and looking forward to the change they took with the narrative.  It's nice when a developer finally decides to get out of their particular "comfort zone" and aren't just staying with "tried and true" to appease the very vocal minority and those who simply don't want to move on and want every game in a genre to play nearly exactly the same as one another.  Of course maybe I simply have a low threshold for playing the same recycled formula again and again...

Modifié par Graunt, 26 décembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[Blastback]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

.

In Exile wrote...

DA2 can be our litmus, since among other things this is the first game to switch from one to the other.

I think DA2 is sufficiently different from DAO in other ways to confuse the data considerably.

I've got to agree with this.  If the only real major change between Origins and DA2 was charater voice, sure, it would work, but there are definatly to many gameplay changes for us to judge the effect on sales of any one of them. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Graunt wrote...

VATS was implemented soley to appease people who hate it when FPS/TPS gameplay infringes on the RPG aspects.

Since FPS/TPS gameplay is simply never fun, and stat-driven aiming is, I think, mandatory for an RPG, VATS was vastly more important than that.

The actual gunplay outside of VATS was pretty awful too until the second game

What do you mean by awful?  I haven't really tried New Vegas yet, but the non-VATS gunplay I've seen in FO3 (I use VATS all the time given the option) has been wholly adequate.

It may have offered more of a "tactical" approach, but it was so miniscule that you may as well not even call it tactics when you literally used the same method for almost everything.  VATS headshot on practically everything or leg cripples on a Deathclaw.

And with an optimal (or combat-focussed) build, that might be relevant.  I'm nowhere near automatic headshots in VATS because I haven't spent a lot of time learning weapon skills.  Because I don't really enjoy combat outside fully tactical games (which, as you point out, FO3 is not).

At least in the first game anyway, in F3NV you could literally run around hip-firing with the Gobi and kill just about everything, or just use the scope at a distance when it was "unsafe".  You could also just run up and explode the head off of a Deathclaw with a Ballistic fist, even on "Very Hard".  VATS was modified to be less powerful than it was before, but it was still plenty strong and the actual gunplay was greatly improved, even if it still doesn't reach "true" FPS/TPS levels of accuracy.

My ideal Fallout gameplay would involve zero shots fired without the use of VATS.

Shooters aren't fun.  Nothing about shooters is fun.  The only shooter I ever really enjoyed were Delta Force (which allowed you to engage almost everyone at extreme range if you had the patience to scout out the area for 20 minutes first).

Back on topic; I enjoyed pretty much all of the RPGs Bioware have released, some much more than others.  In the end they usually always deliver a memorable experience, even if the game has a few or many "faults" within.  I for one and looking forward to the change they took with the narrative.  It's nice when a developer finally decides to get out of their particular "comfort zone" and aren't just staying with "tried and true" to appease the very vocal minority and those who simply don't want to move on and want every game in a genre to play nearly exactly the same as one another.  Of course maybe I simply have a low threshold for playing the same recycled formula again and again...

I'm also excited about the framed narrative.  I think that's a great idea, though I think it might work better is a serialised game.

Unfortunately, I fear that the framed narrative works against the thing I want them to put back in their games that they haven't really done since the first Baldur's Gate.  I want more free exploration.  I want to have to find the main quest rather than have it handed to me.  And ideally (and they've never done this one), I'd like a main quest that isn't based around defeating some villain.

[Wissenschaft]

Since FPS/TPS gameplay is simply never fun

For some reason I find that funny, I wonder what it is...........


As much as I enjoyed the first baldurs gate I most certainly do not want more free exploration, its such aimless freedom that bores me so much as to prevent my from enjoying games like Fallout 3. Not that I don't play that game for time to time but its sporadic since I do like games with Bioware's recent games with very focused storylines much more.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 26 décembre 2010 - 07:22 .

[Graunt]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...

Or maybe Graunt got so immersed in Mass Effect they he felt his Shepard was his own character.

Inmersion and personalization have nothing to do with each other. I can be inmersed in a good novel, yet I won't find myself appropiating Vimes' persona.

That doesn't mean Graunt felt the same way. Quite possible he felt the opposite of you.


As for paraphrasing, I'd rather them use better translations than abandon paraphrasing. It seems like it fits very well with the type of story bioware is telling in DA2.

Some of you appear to believe that Shepard had very limited options, and because of that you could not personalize him.  That's really not true at all, and how much real customization does someone actually need to enjoy a game?  You still had the ability to pick what is ultimately the most important part of a video game RPG: your class.  The dialogue wheel also streamlined what many of you call "options", but I see as needless filler simply because so many of the options were never real choices in the first place.  Most of them had the same end result and were only different shades of the same intent.

Picking your race in Dragon Age only served two functions: 1) the first 30 - 45 minutes and 2) your available classes and to a lesser extent your starting stats.  After the first 30 - 45 minutes you can completely ignore that reason for picking your race unless of course the ten second segments that may happen once or twice referring back to your origin really make or break the entire game for you.  After the first 30 - 45 minutes almost every single race/class combination played exactly like any other story wise.

What's left after that?  Stat allocation, ability allocation and the collection of gear.  Mass Effect did away with stat allocation, but that really only made sense due to the fact that you were supposed to be playing the part of this Shepard character.  Like I previously said, it may have been a Bioware creation, but it was still your character.  What do you think actors do?  What do you think RPGs are based off of?  Stage actors might improvise, but they still generally stick to the script and most mainstream movies have actors who are forced to act the way a director wants them to unless they are allowed to have free reign.  

Does having more flexibility in character creation, even if it's something as trivial as having pink hair truly give you some kind of deeper connection to them?  I can honestly say that I've never felt that way about a character in a video game RPG no matter how much personalization I was allowed.  It may be simply because of my PnP background, but it's very hard for me to have any attatchment to something that in the end I have no true control over -- you simply cannot emulate PnP gaming with the fixed variables in a video game.  It's like saying the Gran Turismo games can give the same sensation as actually driving; not possible -- yet.

Anyway, it's not just your character that makes the overall experience worthwhile.  If it were, you could simply sit in a round room having the time of your life just because you have more control over your character.  You have to consider all of the other factors like the setting and especially the NPCs you meet along the way.  Again, it's easy to do with PnP, the only restriction is the imagination of those you play with -- not true at all for video games.  Mass Effect (ME2 ups the standard in every way, especially art design) offered a very realized setting that felt entirely unique.  You could feel where much of the inspirations came from, but none of it ever felt overly derivative and it really set itself apart from the rest of the pack.  Love or hate the actual combat, the narrative was amazing and the dialogue wheel was a vast improvement for interactive storytelling.  I got caught up in the story and felt like I was a part of it, not just some bystander running around just "doing stuff".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

As much as I enjoyed the first baldurs gate I most certainly do not want more free exploration, its such aimless freedom that bores me so much as to prevent my from enjoying games like Fallout 3.

I don't see how that exploration could possibly be aimless.  If your character doesn't have some objective is exploring some area, why is he doing it?

Exploration rewards the fleshing out of your character's personality, as it gives you a venue in which to express that personality.

And that's what I want from an RPG.  I want a game that hands me a setting and lets me find the adventure in it.  Ideally there will be some terrific well-written adventure for me to find, but simply handing me that quest-line by default defeats the whole purpose of playing a roleplaying game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Graunt wrote...

Some of you appear to believe that Shepard had very limited options, and because of that you could not personalize him.  That's really not true at all, and how much real customization does someone actually need to enjoy a game?  You still had the ability to pick what is ultimately the most important part of a video game RPG: your class.

I insist that the most important part of an RPG - video or otherwise - will always be personality.  There's no way that's ever going to change.

[Graunt]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shooters aren't fun.  Nothing about shooters is fun.  The only shooter I ever really enjoyed were Delta Force (which allowed you to engage almost everyone at extreme range if you had the patience to scout out the area for 20 minutes first).

Heh, to each their own.  I think what you meant to say was "Shooters aren't fun to me".  For the most part I am also of that same mentality and simply cannot comprehend why they are as massively popular as they are; at least nothing about the multiplayer aspects anyway.  After the Quake games it's just been the exact same formula recycled ad nauseam in a new skin.  

Half-Life was the first FPS that I truly enjoyed and could stand to play all the way through -- but of course that was all because of the narrative and level design.  Deus Ex was the next, and to this day remains as one of my all time favorite games, even though shooters are one of my least liked genres.  Then of course there's also the Mass Effect games, which initially didn't appeal to me when I found out it was going to play like a TPS, but then I had so much fun in the first game with biotics that it didn't matter at all.  Mass Effect 2 offered enough additions to the gunplay that it still didn't feel like just another generic TPS.  Stalker, Fallout 3 and Dead Space are the only other "shooters" that I can say I've ever truly enjoyed.  I'd much rather play Starcraft or a fighting game than something like Halo, Modern Warfare or Gears of War if I want to play something competitive.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I insist
that the most important part of an RPG - video or otherwise - will
always be personality.  There's no way that's ever going to change.

And if you read the rest of that post, you'll see that you can never create true personalization in a video game.  So you have to make due with what the game offers you, which is still going to be extremely limited.  Like we realized in some other posts, your opinion and mine on what's important in a "game" greatly differ.  I still believe that gameplay is ultimately the most important factor, not everything that happens in between.  The rest just embellishes it.  Of course the entire package as a whole is very important to me in general, but when talking specifics, I'll stick with gameplay.

Modifié par Graunt, 26 décembre 2010 - 08:03 .

[Felfenix]

Well, if you want a game just like Fallout, you can always go play Fallout. Have fun. I'm surprised you're not complaining that the NPCs in that are voiced too, though. Or that there are graphics, instead of the entire game being text based. Oh, who am I kidding. I'm sure you have some posts about that on Bethesda's forums.

Modifié par Felfenix, 26 décembre 2010 - 08:11 .

[Graunt]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Exploration rewards the fleshing out
of your character's personality, as it gives you a venue in which to
express that personality.



And that's what I want from an RPG. 
I want a game that hands me a setting and lets me find the adventure in
it.  Ideally there will be some terrific well-written adventure for me
to find, but simply handing me that quest-line by default defeats the
whole purpose of playing a roleplaying game.

I'm just going to assume you never played PnP RPGs much?  Again, this is the difference between fixed variables and what you can do outside of a video game. The kind of adventure you're talking about is not possible in a video game and I mostly agree with Wissenschaft on the "in a box" vs "free roam" styles of gameplay.  

To me, Oblivion is one of the most boring RPGs I've ever played in my life, not only because of how many dead spots there are (where I'm assuming you would find to be some grand adventure in psychological development), but because the actual gameplay was so utterly awful.  Morrowind was vastly superior in all aspects other than graphics.  There's a point where free roam for the sake of free roam is not a good thing.  Fallout 3 was essentially "Oblivion with guns" yet for some reason it was a lot more interesting to me.  Probably because of how they handled the narrative.  

I don't believe Dragon Age was nearly that bad at all in terms of the way they handled the story and "roaming", but my Bio-sense is leading me to belive it will be greatly improved in Dragon Age 2 despite what the nasayers are saying right now.

Also, this seems to sum up most of the negative feelings towards the changes, no?  www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Graunt, 26 décembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[In Exile]

Blastback wrote...
I've got to agree with this.  If the only real major change between Origins and DA2 was charater voice, sure, it would work, but there are definatly to many gameplay changes for us to judge the effect on sales of any one of them. 

I've debated that while writing the post. I suppose I'm not as sensitive to the changes since many of them are in a positive direction re: my tastes.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I insist that the most important part of an RPG - video or otherwise - will always be personality.  There's no way that's ever going to change.

Which, of course, you had lots of control over. The issue isn't personality but what you think makes up that personality and what makes you feel like you are in control of it. That's at the centre of all these what is an RPG debate. But that isn't something we should go on in this thread.

Rather, on the topic of a free roam RPG, I'm rather sure that if Biioware did such a thing, depending on how exactly they were going to implement it, the game would probably fall into the same ''rental-only'' category I filled Fallout and Oblivion under.

If we had tactical turn based combat (hex based turn, like in Journeys) then I would buy the game with no concern for any other feature (I mean, I would have honestly bought a full version of Journeys).

[Wissenschaft]

God Graunt, Dat video. You just had to go there.  

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 26 décembre 2010 - 10:23 .

[Graunt]

One of the early preview articles sums up exactly my sentiments on going from Mass Effect to Dragon Age and how Dragon Age 2 should give a much better experience overall.

Conversations in the game have gotten a major overhaul. When you interact with other characters now, the games uses a conversation wheel like the one in Mass Effect.  Each response you can give is presented in a way that gives you feeling  of how you will reply, be it sarcastic, angry, helpful etc. (indicated by an icon in the  center of the wheel) without revealing exactly what you will say. This is because now all your responses are fully  voiced. This helps draw you into the game more deeply. I was skeptical at first because I did not mind reading my hero's responses in Origins, but since playing Dragon Age 2 and then playing Origins some more, this change has a huge impact. Now watching your party converse with each other in Origins, strongly delivering their lines and then having  the focus switch back to your powerful hero who stares silently at the group is a bit jarring. I think they made the right choice with this change as my experience so far with it only enhances the gameplay.

www.actiontrip.com/previews/dragonage2_2.phtml

Modifié par Graunt, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:00 .

[Maria Caliban]

In Exile wrote...

Blastback wrote...
I've got to agree with this.  If the only real major change between Origins and DA2 was charater voice, sure, it would work, but there are definatly to many gameplay changes for us to judge the effect on sales of any one of them. 

I've debated that while writing the post. I suppose I'm not as sensitive to the changes since many of them are in a positive direction re: my tastes.

The biggest difference between DA:O and DA 2 is that one is a sequel.

[Archereon]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.

May I just say...Well no, I shouldn't say this, I'm finally started to gain interest in DA2, and don't want to be banned...

[Archereon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Graunt wrote...

Some of you appear to believe that Shepard had very limited options, and because of that you could not personalize him.  That's really not true at all, and how much real customization does someone actually need to enjoy a game?  You still had the ability to pick what is ultimately the most important part of a video game RPG: your class.

I insist that the most important part of an RPG - video or otherwise - will always be personality.  There's no way that's ever going to change.

Technically its gameplay systems derived in whole or significant part from early tabletop games (D&D and such), but most devs and players have warped that defenition so far its not even funny.

(Personally, I consider games like Mass Effect to be a seperate genre from the RPG, not necessarily just a shooter, but definately not an RPG in traditional terms...Perhaps its time Bioware just went and started categorizing their games in a new genre, one they were instrumental in making?)

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

But that's a terrible argument. Fallout might have sold even more if it had a voiced PC. You have no grounds of comparison

Hence i'm not comparing anything. I'm just pointing out it did sell well (5 mil units shipped as was supposedly the case with F:NV is a lot for any genre) and a number of reviews didn't even mention lack of the VO. While if it was perceived as a (significant) flaw, it'd be quite natural to see this flaw receive some coverage.

As a further example, Fable II sold 2,347,699 in 10 weeks; Fable III (which added PC VO) sold 2,347,284 in 8 weeks. (..)

edit: i was under impression Fable 3 PC version was out but it seems to still be delayed? In any case, this would be probably reasonable comparison to make if the VO was the only feature that changed between these two games. As it is, trying to determine what exact impact addition of the VO had on sales is rather difficult.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 décembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[tmp7704]

Graunt wrote...

One of the early preview articles sums up exactly my sentiments on going from Mass Effect to Dragon Age and how Dragon Age 2 should give a much better experience overall.

Now watching your party converse with each other in Origins, strongly delivering their lines and then having  the focus switch back to your powerful hero who stares silently at the group is a bit jarring. I think they made the right choice with this change as my experience so far with it only enhances the gameplay.

It is interesting complaint to make, because the player's character "stares silently" in the game while the player picks their response. And this is something which happens just the same in game with voiced protagonist -- the game has the character "staring silently" exactly the same while you pick his/her lines. Yet in one of these scenarios it goes overlooked and treated as if it never happens simply because the player is shown to speak eventually while the other leaves that part up to imagination.

Probably says something about our perception, but not going into discussion about that again.

[Graunt]

tmp7704 wrote...

Graunt wrote...

One of the early preview articles sums up exactly my sentiments on going from Mass Effect to Dragon Age and how Dragon Age 2 should give a much better experience overall.

Now watching your party converse with each other in Origins, strongly delivering their lines and then having  the focus switch back to your powerful hero who stares silently at the group is a bit jarring. I think they made the right choice with this change as my experience so far with it only enhances the gameplay.

It is interesting complaint to make, because the player's character "stares silently" in the game while the player picks their response. And this is something which happens just the same in game with voiced protagonist -- the game has the character "staring silently" exactly the same while you pick his/her lines. Yet in one of these scenarios it goes overlooked and treated as if it never happens simply because the player is shown to speak eventually while the other leaves that part up to imagination.

Probably says something about our perception, but not going into discussion about that again.

I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose or what, but he's talking about the fact that even after you pick your response, you are still staring silently and have zero emotion displayed as well.  The deliveries are nothing alike.  The fact that there's a pause and it's determined on the player's reaction time is irrelevant -- that isn't supposed to be how long it would actually take Shepard to respond unless he's truly pondering something for a while before answering.  

In Dragon Age it doesn't matter how long it takes you to reply, you still never actually "say" anything.  This doesn't really matter much in games where none of the characters are actually vocal and everything is text driven, but it's distracting when it's inconsistent.  In a "real" RPG, you don't sit around with your friends and "stare silently" at them after you've picked your dialogue mentally and expect them to know what you're thinking, especially if your poker-face never changes.

Archereon wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Graunt wrote...

Some
of you appear to believe that Shepard had very limited options, and
because of that you could not personalize him.  That's really not true
at all, and how much real customization does someone actually need to
enjoy a game?  You still had the ability to pick what is ultimately the
most important part of a video game RPG: your class.

I insist
that the most important part of an RPG - video or otherwise - will
always be personality.  There's no way that's ever going to change.

Technically
its gameplay systems derived in whole or significant part from early
tabletop games (D&D and such), but most devs and players have warped
that defenition so far its not even funny.

(Personally, I
consider games like Mass Effect to be a seperate genre from the RPG, not
necessarily just a shooter, but definately not an RPG in traditional
terms...Perhaps its time Bioware just went and started categorizing
their games in a new genre, one they were instrumental in making?)

Being only a d20 game does not a roleplaying game make.  And if you'll remember, in the first Mass Effect quite a bit of your "hit or miss" with your weapons were random numbers behind the scene.  It was a very akward system which is why they opted to just go ahead and make the shooting "real" this time around.  And if you want to get technical, just about every single video game in which you're in control of a character is a "roleplaying game".

I had played PnP games for about twenty years, so I think I have a pretty good idea on how the TSR (and a few other similar) games played and what actually constitutes as an RPG.  Like I've been saying though, there's a very large difference between PnP RPGs and CRPGs.  CRPGs are a weak imitation of PnP, but do their best to emulate within the medium.

Modifié par Graunt, 26 décembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[AlanC9]

Archereon wrote...

Technically its gameplay systems derived in whole or significant part from early tabletop games (D&D and such), but most devs and players have warped that defenition so far its not even funny.

Really? PnP systems are so diverse that I don't see how CRPG developers could warp that definition. Hell, Bio could rip out experience altogether from ME3 and claim they were basing the game on original Traveller.

[Johnny Shepard]

One problem I had with Dragon Age: Origins was that while Elves and Dwarfs had 2 Origins, Human hade only 1 (Im not counting Mage since it was more like a race of its own). So I have no problem with just playing Human in Dragon Age II. Infact I sort of se it as the missing 2:nd Human Origin.

I find it strange that nobody else ses it that way.



And when it comes to who your temporary companion is in the begining of Dragon Age II I think its just logic that the Warrior/Rouge gets a Mage and the Mage gets a Warrior. Or else you could sit there having 2 warriors and needing a Mage, or having 2 Mages and getting killed because you have no warrior to protect your Mage.