495 réponses à ce sujet

[lv12medic]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Thats why theres a story involved, otherwise you're just playing Diablo and its ilk. For people that seem to hate some aspects of RPG's so vehemently, I'm not sure why you guys torture yourselves with them.

I like being rewarded over the course of the game with new weapons or armor or spells, but its not the focal point of playing for me. making choices in the story that may affect various aspects of the plot is why I play RPG's. The customization aspects and loot is just a bonus.

I'll chime in for a bit here. 

The underlined part got me thinking.  (Plus, I think there was another thread on how meaningful combat is?)  But here we go:  Is killing stuff and grinding XP and looking for loot meaningful?  I think my number one gripe with any RPG is that it is so clunky between being part of the world and combat.  You're in a world, talking to people and making decisions and being pulled into the story and then you get swerved out of the way to whack people over the head until they all die and you pick up someone's sword and think "yay, I now do 10.2 damage a hit vs. 9.8."  I suppose the combat part of any of the cRPG's can be looked upon as being game like.  And the dialogue being interactive-movie like.  It just always seems so discontinous from each other though.  It always feels like I'm playing two different games at the same time.  Speaking of which, I think I feel the same way playing Pen and Paper RPG's.  So maybe it's just me.

Modifié par lv12medic, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:13 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Oblivion? Modern game, no voiced protagonist, sold well,  DA:O? Same thing,  Fallout New Vegas? Same thing.

The arguement you're making that if a game doesn't have a voiced protagonist that it doesn't qualify as modern is a stretch to say the least.

I'll give you a gold star if you quote me on where I said modern games didn't have these features, or where I mentioned VO at all in this entire conversation.

Considering you've focused on VO's most of the past page or two, I figured you were still on that. I don't hate VO's, I think they limit the amount of RP freedom for the player but I also don't think they should never be used if implimented in a fashion that's complex enough to still allow the player to make indepth choices how THEY want to make them, not how some writer wrote the line.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

not how some writer wrote the line.

I could never dream of dismissing the writer's role in cRPGs in such a casual way. 

Though I imagine if I had to elaborate on that point I'd be stepping into "what is a cRPG" territory.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:17 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

It's not solely aboutaa personal opinion folks, it mostly was an economic decision (no visual custom outfits).

Having customizable outfits for each character is a lot of stuff to code as it basically requires the devs to make an outfit of every armor for every possible companion in the game - a whole lot of work. Is it better for the customers? Yes.

It's not about what customers want though, gaming no longer is the 2-guys-sit-in-room-and-code-a-game industry, it's a harsh branch right now that's run by huge companies, some better, some worse. It's about economics. It's about how you can make most profit...and this means that most decisions about a game have to be economic.

Custom armor is not economic. It's a lot of work that would prolong the release of the game and thus prolong earning money with it. Custom armor is something that does not hurt too much and players do not seem to care for it.

Again, as I stated multiple times, you can moan and complain at the forums as much as you like, as long as a game sells well, your opinion is void.

Non-customizable armor was in Mass Effect 2. Were there people who complained about it? Hell yeah, a lot of people did. Did the game, as a consequence, sell badly? No.

People complain about a feature yet the game sells really well => so what? Most people who complained about the "feature" (it's not a feature actually as an already implemented feature gets removed) bought the game anyway, cash is cash, game sold well => opposing opinion is void.

Bioware made a change that saves a lot of work, most customers approved of it => it becomes the rule.

Easy concept.

I'm not saying that Bioware is lazy, they used to make great games, it's just that Bioware no longer is the small developer, but a part of the EA "family" and people need to realize that there are reasons why a game can be released so short after the first one. Cutting time-consuming features for example.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:19 .

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Considering you've focused on VO's most of the past page or two, I figured you were still on that.

I didn't mention VO at all. All my posts were related to my taste on companion equipment. The first post I made in this thread today was the following on pg. 14:

In Exile wrote...
I'm cool with that. It's not that I hate
inventory management like some. I just want companions to look distinct.
I also happen to like consistency. So if Shepard is wearing N7 armour,
then I would like other characters to wear armour too. It would bother
me if Hawke had to wear massive armour in DA2 but no one else did. Since
there is the idea of class appropriate armour, it wouldn't bother me if
rogue or mage Hawke had the option of clothing.

The problem
with that is that if you have 8 followers, that's already 24 unique
models. With 5-7 per model that means over 40-56 models.

You brought up VO.

I don't hate VO's, I think they limit the amount of RP freedom for the player but I also don't think they should never be used if implimented in a fashion that's complex enough to still allow the player to make indepth choices how THEY want to make them, not how some writer wrote the line.

If we are talking VO, I don't think you have a choice in the line being anything other than what the writer wrote with VO or not.

But again, I never brought up VO. I was talking about customization until you got wound up that I disagree with you.

Modifié par In Exile, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:18 .

[hexaligned]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

DnD was based on tabletop wargames. I hate-hate-hate the emphasis on violence and acquisition of loot this has created, and I say this as someone who once spent 8 hours straight guild mates through Molten Core, slept, and then spent another 16 doing it.

Please don't remind me.
Please.

*reminded of C'thun trash, shudders*

Getting better loot to get better loot for better loot isn't a fun system when all you can strive for is more loot.

It might not be "fun", it can get pretty addictive though, wow being a good example.  I don't even want to know how many hours I spent tanking in Vanilla.  I have dim hate filled memories of running UBRS 100000000000 times for my damn chest piece.  And then of course replacing it the first time I did MC.  

I do however lovex3 my strategy war games, and I can't even wrap my brain around why people play games like the SIMS.  Most "RP" things people seem to enjoy in DAO (and other games) , the romances, all the dialogue, I don't need those things in a video game, I have plenty of that in RL.  What I can't walk outside and do, is pick up a sharp hunk of metal and go galumphing off after evil twisted monstrosities. 

The question of violence is interesting, I see it more as a matter of needing some sort of conflict however.   What would you have besides combat?  A game revolving around political maneuvering? Around internal moral or spirtitual struggles?  I'd most likely be willing to spend money on games like that, if just to support the devs at an atttempt at originality if nothign else, I'm not sure how well they would sell in the mainstream however.

[Matchy Pointy]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Oblivion? Modern game, no voiced protagonist, sold well,  DA:O? Same thing,  Fallout New Vegas? Same thing.

The arguement you're making that if a game doesn't have a voiced protagonist that it doesn't qualify as modern is a stretch to say the least.

I'll give you a gold star if you quote me on where I said modern games didn't have these features, or where I mentioned VO at all in this entire conversation.

Considering you've focused on VO's most of the past page or two, I figured you were still on that. I don't hate VO's, I think they limit the amount of RP freedom for the player but I also don't think they should never be used if implimented in a fashion that's complex enough to still allow the player to make indepth choices how THEY want to make them, not how some writer wrote the line.

You are limited to how the writer wrote the line no mtter if it is voiced or not. In DA:O you can only say the words the writers put into your mouth, only they arent voiced.

[upsettingshorts]

relhart wrote...

The question of violence is interesting, I see it more as a matter of needing some sort of conflict however.   What would you have besides combat?  A game revolving around political maneuvering?

That'd work.

Another example would be Deus Ex, which gave the player the chance to use stealth, hacking, etc. 

[Dave of Canada]

relhart wrote...

The question of violence is interesting, I see it more as a matter of needing some sort of conflict however.   What would you have besides combat?  A game revolving around political maneuvering? Around internal moral or spirtitual struggles?  I'd most likely be willing to spend money on games like that, if just to support the devs at an atttempt at originality if nothign else, I'm not sure how well they would sell in the mainstream however.

Alternatives to combat is always nice, I forget the game but there was one where you needed to get an artifact in some temple or something. Here were your options:
Do you fight through the temple, killing all who stand between you and the artifact?
Do you sneak through the temple, hiding in the shadows and going in and out without being detected? (if detected, resort to combat)
Do you bluff your way past everybody through dialogue?

It made the quest a lot more fun, I snuck my way into the chamber with dialogue and then snuck half way through and fought off the guards after being detected. It was a lot more fun than just forcing violence / sneaking or dialogue as the only solution. Though with the Dragon Age system, I don't see this working as well.

[Maria Caliban]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I don't know, are they making these sweeping changes because they truly beleive it's better? Or because they're on a 18 month schdule and doing things like ME2 was far easier to pull off due to time/budget/work involved?

A little of both. I assume most decisions BioWare makes involves economics, creative vision, and consumer appeal.

However, I think that if they had 2-3 years to put out DA 2, we'd end up with several unique companion outfits, not a return to the DA:O armor system.

[In Exile]

relhart wrote...
The question of violence is interesting, I see it more as a matter of needing some sort of conflict however.   What would you have besides combat?  A game revolving around political maneuvering? Around internal moral or spirtitual struggles?  I'd most likely be willing to spend money on games like that, if just to support the devs at an atttempt at originality if nothign else, I'm not sure how well they would sell in the mainstream however.

I think we can have combat, just not the excessive kind as in DA:O. Like we can have "major encounters" that are endpoints to particular plots. To take DA:O as an example, if we had to sneak into Arl Howe's mansion, I would only have two encounters: Ser Cautherin and Arl Howe himself. No mooks.

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote..
And you're absolutely right DA2 should be like ME because I like some features from ME more. Dragon Age would be a better game for me if it had these features, and I'm under no obligation to advocate any other change than the change I like.

And DA would be a worse game for me if it simply took in ME features. I know you don't value variety in games, but come on, man.

In Exile wrote...
"Like I said, go play BG, or BGII, or IWD, or IWD2 or Fallout or Fallout 2 if you love it's aspects so damn much. Not every game needs to be like BG, or BGII, or IWD, or IWD2 of Fallout or Fallout 2."

News flash:  Go play ME1 or ME2 if you love its aspects so much.  Not every game needs to be like ME1 or ME2.

And considering so few new games are made in the more traditional style like DAO, while 20 hour cover based shooters with dialogue wheels are in vogue, there are plenty of games like that for you to gobble up.

In Exile wrote...
If every game had the features I liked, it would be an awesome ride for  me. It might suck for you, but explain again why I should care?

I'm sorry man but you're really coming across as a hostile twit.

Modifié par Brockololly, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Considering you've focused on VO's most of the past page or two, I figured you were still on that.

I didn't mention VO at all. All my posts were related to my taste on companion equipment. The first post I made in this thread today was the following on pg. 14:

In Exile wrote...
I'm cool with that. It's not that I hate
inventory management like some. I just want companions to look distinct.
I also happen to like consistency. So if Shepard is wearing N7 armour,
then I would like other characters to wear armour too. It would bother
me if Hawke had to wear massive armour in DA2 but no one else did. Since
there is the idea of class appropriate armour, it wouldn't bother me if
rogue or mage Hawke had the option of clothing.

The problem
with that is that if you have 8 followers, that's already 24 unique
models. With 5-7 per model that means over 40-56 models.

You brought up VO.

I don't hate VO's, I think they limit the amount of RP freedom for the player but I also don't think they should never be used if implimented in a fashion that's complex enough to still allow the player to make indepth choices how THEY want to make them, not how some writer wrote the line.

If we are talking VO, I don't think you have a choice in the line being anything other than what the writer wrote with VO or not.

But again, I never brought up VO. I was talking about customization until you got wound up that I disagree with you.

Not so because you can make those definitions within your own head or off screen or what have you.

In Exile wrote...


You're not going to find many people
agree with this. I suppose I should laud you on your desire to have
less games you like, but I'm not like that and I'm sure others share my
disposition. All games should be games I like. That gives me much more
entertainment value. On any particular forum, I will always advocate for
the kind of game I like.

If they suddenly released a Halo RPG
with PC VO and character customization, my reaction wouldn't be "Keep
Halo the same!" but "Score! A third series that implements my favourite features!"

This is where I assumed you were lumping in VO's with the rest of the stripping you seem to want to advocate for because static outfits are so awesome apparently.

[upsettingshorts]

Brockololly wrote...

I'm sorry man but you're really coming across as a hostile twit.

He's debating with CoS Sarah Jinstar?  That tends to bring that out of people.

He's saying that he has a right to ask for DA2 to be more like ME.  Just like you have a right to ask for DA2 to be as close to DAO as possible.  Neither is under any obligation to give a damn about the opinions of the other.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:38 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Brockololly wrote...

In Exile wrote..
And you're absolutely right DA2 should be like ME because I like some features from ME more. Dragon Age would be a better game for me if it had these features, and I'm under no obligation to advocate any other change than the change I like.

And DA would be a worse game for me if it simply took in ME features. I know you don't value variety in games, but come on, man.

In Exile wrote...
"Like I said, go play BG, or BGII, or IWD, or IWD2 or Fallout or Fallout 2 if you love it's aspects so damn much. Not every game needs to be like BG, or BGII, or IWD, or IWD2 of Fallout or Fallout 2."

News flash:  Go play ME1 or ME2 if you love its aspects so much.  Not every game needs to be like ME1 or ME2.

And considering so few new games are made in the more traditional style like DAO, while 20 hour cover based shooters with dialogue wheels are in vogue, there are plenty of games like that for you to gobble up.

In Exile wrote...
If every game had the features I liked, it would be an awesome ride for  me. It might suck for you, but explain again why I should care?

I'm sorry man but you're really coming across as a hostile twit.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say. But considering its InExile who tends to be obtuse on purpose to extend 5
page debates with Sylvius I figure he was just being himself as usual

[Xero Striker]

lv12medic wrote...

Get your Dragon Effect out of my Mass Age.

...

Speaking of which... I could use a good massage...

Lol true dat there

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Thats exactly what I was trying to say. But considering its InExile who tends to be obtuse on purpose to extend 5
page debates with Sylvius I figure he was just being himself as usual

I don't think even Sylvius would describe In Exile's positions in their debates as intentionally obtuse. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 décembre 2010 - 07:39 .

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...

In Exile wrote..
And you're absolutely right DA2 should be like ME because I like some features from ME more. Dragon Age would be a better game for me if it had these features, and I'm under no obligation to advocate any other change than the change I like.

And DA would be a worse game for me if it simply took in ME features. I know you don't value variety in games, but come on, man.

How is this In Exile's concern, or mine? It's Mike Laidlaw's problem -- even if he decides to throw you and Sarah under a bus, he ought to be aware of your existence. 

[Russalka]

Is this thing going on for the sake of just arguing by now? Has it gone beyond pizza-toppings yet?

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
And DA would be a worse game for me if it simply took in ME features. I know you don't value variety in games, but come on, man. 

I get that. But you're here to advocate for your taste, and you do.

For the Warden and Morrigain, for Silent PCs, etc. I don't have to advocate for your taste because you're here to advocate for yours.

I mean, you actively advocate against mine (for example) by asking for any kind of role for the Orlesian Warden in future DA products. This is your right as a consumer. There is nothing wrong with me exercising my right as well.

News flash:  Go play ME1 or ME2 if you love its aspects so much.  Not every game needs to be like ME1 or ME2.

How is this even an argument? That post was just satire of this inane position. You really don't see it?

And considering so few new games are made in the more traditional style like DAO, while 20 hour cover based shooters with dialogue wheels are in vogue, there are plenty of games like that for you to gobble up.

What makes you think I like cover shooters? My favourite combat system is turn-based hex combat like in Heroes of Might and Magic. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to infer my preferences from you own biases.

I'm sorry man but you're really coming across as a hostile twit.

I have an obligation to care about what you want in games?

[Maria Caliban]

I understand In Exile's position even if it's one I disagree with. More than my disagreement, however, is the simple problem that it makes conversation impossible. There are a few elements of the game where I hold my opinion as being equal to 1 and anything different is equal to 0. (I assume most can guess what those might be.) It's not something I use for every element and certainly not every element of every game.

If nothing else, what I think I like and what I like aren't always the same. I dislike racing games but I loved Mirror's Edge, a game I quickly realized is essentially a racing game.

Though the cynical part of me thinks is fine for In Exile to retreat to that position as it wasn't as though much actual conversation was happening on this thread.

[upsettingshorts]

Brockololly wrote...

games like that for you to gobble up.

I can't possibly be the only one who notices subtle language like this being used all the time.   If I enter one of my really hostile, snarky moods seemingly out of "nowhere" - assume I've read way too much of this kind of thing and need to vent. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 décembre 2010 - 08:06 .

[Demx]

Russalka wrote...

Is this thing going on for the sake of just arguing by now? Has it gone beyond pizza-toppings yet?

It will continue even till after the game is release. Since there are people out there that feel that Dragon Age 2 has taken too much from the Mass Effect series.

[Bigdoser]

Siradix wrote...

Russalka wrote...

Is this thing going on for the sake of just arguing by now? Has it gone beyond pizza-toppings yet?

It will continue even till after the game is release. Since there are people out there that feel that Dragon Age 2 has taken too much from the Mass Effect series.

What difference will that make? Also if dragon age 2 sells well which I will think will really happen bioware may keep to the same formula.