473 réponses à ce sujet

[Tiax Rules All]

I just want to say that this game does "LOOK" to me, to be a little bit on the hack and slash side. That being said Anathemic, your posts are starting to get really annoying, your points are not working in your favor and you might rethink posting any more about it.

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Considering the DA2 in-game glorified trailers and the gamepaly video, I've come to the conclusion that it has similar qualities to a hack-n-slash game.

The qualities it shares with hack-n-slash games is presentation:  Animation, speed, art style, and GUI.

Anathemic wrote...

Note that this did not come from just one presentation but from multiple.

You misunderstood the context of the word "presentation" in the argument.  I've clarified.

Anathemic wrote...

Sarcasm doesn't work on a forum for it is meant as a taunt, jibe, etc. So by clearly using sarcasm you were taunting me? Will you really stoop so low to taunting in an argument?

When I thought you were being obtuse?  Absolutely.  But then you posted your definition of hack-n-slash, and I realized that you weren't being obtuse, just making an argument from an incompatible premise.

I base my definition of what constitutes the differences between genres solely on gameplay mechanics.  Which you haven't brought up once, because they aren't part of how you make distinctions between genres.   Like AlanC9 pointed out, if you are going to use your definition of hack-n-slash, it would be impossible for you to appreciate what I or even Mike Laidlaw himself was trying to say. 

Therefore I do not dispute you calling DA2 hack-n-slash based on your definition of it.

Even if your definition is the "popular one" - and I'd dispute that it is - it isn't the one Bioware is using.  And that's what actually matters.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:54 .

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Considering the DA2 in-game glorified trailers and the gamepaly video, I've come to the conclusion that it has similar qualities to a hack-n-slash game.

The qualities it shares with hack-n-slash games is presentation:  Animation, speed, art style, and GUI.

Anathemic wrote...

Note that this did not come from just one presentation but from multiple.

You misunderstood the context of the word "presentation" in the argument.  I've clarified.

Anathemic wrote...

Sarcasm doesn't work on a forum for it is meant as a taunt, jibe, etc. So by clearly using sarcasm you were taunting me? Will you really stoop so low to taunting in an argument?

When I thought you were being obtuse?  Absolutely.  But then you posted your definition of hack-n-slash, and I realized that you weren't being obtuse, just making an argument from an incompatible premise.

I base my definition of what constitutes the differences between genres solely on gameplay mechanics.  Which you haven't brought up once, because they aren't part of how you make distinctions between genres.   Like AlanC9 pointed out, if you are going to use your definition of hack-n-slash, it would be impossible for you to appreciate what I or even Mike Laidlaw himself was trying to say. 

Therefore I do not dispute you calling DA2 hack-n-slash based on your definition of it.

Even if your definition is the "popular one" - and I'd dispute that it is - it isn't the one Bioware is using.  And that's what actually matters.  

Okay let's think outside-of-the-box for a moment.

I understand to fully understand/determine the type of genre a game is, one must understand the gameplay mechanics of it. Well unfortunatly we don't have access to said mechanics, why? Because none of us here has the game.

So what's the closest we can get to from that? In-game presentations, which indeed we do have access to.

This is why I cannot respond the argument 'is' because it is frankly impossible at the moment and is obviously a loaded question. And to take a stand against a loaded question is to appear obtuse or to submit, and I'm not one to to submit and I'm sorry for appearing obtuse but you've already determined that I'm not.

Actually, BioWare may or may not be using the definition on developing the game, but all is determined on the end result of the game. If BioWare's goal is to design a game not be hack-n-slash but the end-result is that is is, then it will be called a hack-n-slash.

Pwnsaur's quote will fit here:

"If we are not talking about whether or not the consideration of this
topic is legitimate, what are we talking about? No one has played it,
and so no one knows. It is the only sensible argument there is...unless
someone here is a fortune teller."

Modifié par Anathemic, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:00 .

[Tiax Rules All]

I'm so mother ****ing hardcore I play every game on 640x480 resolution so i can see all the individual pixels

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...

The definition I posted was the definition that most people widely agree to. I thought I declared this flawed by stating that this standard definition was expandable by the introduction of Diablo where short-sword combat doesn't necassarily equal hack-n-slash.

And since said definition is flawed and expandable, then this concept of hack-n-slash will never have a coherent/standard defintion applied to it, but instead a general consensus of what type of game fits that genre.

This whole argument is to determine based off in-game vids whether DA2 fits in this genre.

Assuming hack-n-slash is a genre rather than a style, a marketing term, or just an epithet.

But I'll play. Let's assume that it's a genre. I'm still waiting for a coherent definition that includes DA2 and excludes DAO. Unless you want to go ahead and call DAO a hack-n-slash game.

No, strike that. We're not playing the sort of game where coherent definitions are available to be played in the first place. I guess you can play feelings here. Fast  + lots of combat feels like hack-n-slash to you? Slow + lots of combat ! doesn't feel like hack-n-slash? 

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

The definition I posted was the definition that most people widely agree to. I thought I declared this flawed by stating that this standard definition was expandable by the introduction of Diablo where short-sword combat doesn't necassarily equal hack-n-slash.

And since said definition is flawed and expandable, then this concept of hack-n-slash will never have a coherent/standard defintion applied to it, but instead a general consensus of what type of game fits that genre.

This whole argument is to determine based off in-game vids whether DA2 fits in this genre.

Assuming hack-n-slash is a genre rather than a style, a marketing term, or just an epithet.

But I'll play. Let's assume that it's a genre. I'm still waiting for a coherent definition that includes DA2 and excludes DAO. Unless you want to go ahead and call DAO a hack-n-slash game.

No, strike that. We're not playing the sort of game where coherent definitions are available to be played in the first place. I guess you can play feelings here. Fast  + lots of combat feels like hack-n-slash to you? Slow + lots of combat ! doesn't feel like hack-n-slash? 

And what will you go by to defend DA2 is NOT a hack-n-slash? Quotes? Obviously not since the video emphasize on 'feeling' rather than 'is'. Faith? Laughable. Let's hear your side of the story.

[AlanC9]

Or we could just play total ignorance. Anathemic, you're the only one who's ever been trying to prove something here. Now you're saying we don't have enough information to do it?

[slimgrin]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

I'm so mother ****ing hardcore I play every game on 640x480 resolution so i can see all the individual pixels

I play with a stick and a hoop. Beat that.

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Okay let's think outside-of-the-box for a moment.

I understand to fully understand/determine the type of genre a game is, one must understand the gameplay mechanics of it. Well unfortunatly we don't have access to said mechanics, why? Because none of us here has the game.

So what's the closest we can get to from that? In-game presentations, which indeed we do have access to.

Not true.  I've seen abilities being used in precisely the same way I used them in Origins - whether or not it was the "action" section or the "tactical" section.  Buttons were pressed, abilities were triggered, they played themselves out (ie, not twitch) etc. 

Furthermore, we have statements from Bioware developers - most notably Peter Thomas, Mike Laidlaw, and Seb Hanlon - on these boards explaining how things work - in what ways they're different from DAO and what ways they're the same.  Nothing I have seen, read, or heard would fit into my conception of the gameplay mechanics of a hack-n-slash game.  

So I dispute the notion that we have no idea what the gameplay is like and can only "guess" based on the change in presentation.  Unless the claim is that Thomas, Laidlaw, and others are being deliberately misleading.  Is that your position?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:11 .

[bsbcaer]

Anathemic wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere with this without some sort of coherent definition of action game or hack-n-slash. I guess it's on you since you're the one trying to prove something. What's your definition?

"Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

-http://dictionary.se...nd slash/en-en/

Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)

Does DA:O qualify as HnS? No, because it was a much slower and tactical combat-game.
Does The Witcher qualify as HnS? No, because the combat was basic and not emphasized that much, not to mention repetetive.
Does StarCraft 2 qualify as HnS? No, because combat is emphasized on a much larger scale rather than focused battles.
Does Halo 3 qualify as HnS? Yes, because combat is heavily emphasized and focused on how one is to kill an opponent be it fast, 'cool', magnitude, etc.

See where I'm going here?

Pulling your chosen definition out of the quote so we can focus on it for a second:  "Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

Based on your chosen definition, DA:O is certainly a "Hack and Slash" game.  You can't point at the "slow and tactical combat-game" and apply then not apply the definition you chose.  In your definition, there is nothing about the speed of combat, but rather an emphasis on close combat with short range weapons.  Haven't played the Witcher, but again, based on your definition, it sounds like a "Hack and Slash" even if "the combat was basic and not emphasized" -- from what I gathered, the Witcher involves close combat with short-range weapons

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

jairohhh wrote...

Hi, I've been playing rpgs since 85, I loved DAO because it had that baldurs gate -Icewind dale feeling, the strategy involved in combat in those games was a little deeper than in DAO but DAO did a great job in the strategy department.

I was hopping that DA2 would enforce the more tactical aspects of the game with the incusion of a

-COMBAT LOG (theres no way to know what kind of damage your enemies are doing to you without a combat log and this makes some of the potions in the game useless)

-ABILITY TO MOVE THE CAMERA IN STRATEGY MODE (the strategy camera is great in DAO but sometimes the player needs to be able to move it)

I know this cant be done for consoles , but it shouldnt be that hard to do in PC, the new camera in DA2 doesnt look good for strategy gameplay.

--PLEASE RECONSIDER THE HACK N SLASH aproach that you want to put in DA2, and please keep the PC VERSION OLD SCHOOL!!  

Dont loose your fanbase, if you make an Action rpgish game you loose the hardcore RPG fans and the Action adventures fans (because there are other action adventure games out there, like uncharted 3, god of war, thor,etc)

Put more security on your PC version or do something like battle.net to encourage players to buy an original copy of your game, dont try to please console gamers with an Action game.
 
I love Mass Effect but I dont want another Mass Effect

Edit: Removed SHOUTING from title.

You're gonna be disappointed.

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Or we could just play total ignorance. Anathemic, you're the only one who's ever been trying to prove something here. Now you're saying we don't have enough information to do it?

Obviously you've already determined that there's not enough information, atleast on my argument? I already admitted that in a previous post. Remember that this is a forum and like all forums it is open to opinion, especially if it a forum dedicated to a game that is not released yet where speculation is rampant all over.

Quoted from Pwnsaur:

"If we are not talking about whether or not the consideration of this
topic is legitimate, what are we talking about? No one has played it,
and so no one knows. It is the only sensible argument there is...unless
someone here is a fortune teller."

[Anathemic]

bsbcaer wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere with this without some sort of coherent definition of action game or hack-n-slash. I guess it's on you since you're the one trying to prove something. What's your definition?

"Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

-http://dictionary.se...nd slash/en-en/

Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)

Does DA:O qualify as HnS? No, because it was a much slower and tactical combat-game.
Does The Witcher qualify as HnS? No, because the combat was basic and not emphasized that much, not to mention repetetive.
Does StarCraft 2 qualify as HnS? No, because combat is emphasized on a much larger scale rather than focused battles.
Does Halo 3 qualify as HnS? Yes, because combat is heavily emphasized and focused on how one is to kill an opponent be it fast, 'cool', magnitude, etc.

See where I'm going here?

Pulling your chosen definition out of the quote so we can focus on it for a second:  "Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

Based on your chosen definition, DA:O is certainly a "Hack and Slash" game.  You can't point at the "slow and tactical combat-game" and apply then not apply the definition you chose.  In your definition, there is nothing about the speed of combat, but rather an emphasis on close combat with short range weapons.  Haven't played the Witcher, but again, based on your definition, it sounds like a "Hack and Slash" even if "the combat was basic and not emphasized" -- from what I gathered, the Witcher involves close combat with short-range weapons

Bolded part is my personal standard defintion, I quoted the definition above from dictionary.com to state how it doesn't apply to every aspect on determining hack-n-slash games.

[upsettingshorts]

bsbcaer wrote...
Haven't played the Witcher, but again, based on your definition, it sounds like a "Hack and Slash" even if "the combat was basic and not emphasized" -- from what I gathered, the Witcher involves close combat with short-range weapons

I have played The Witcher, and applying the definition cited in the article it most definitely qualifies.  All combat in the game was close combat with swords (and short-range spells).  The fact it is "repetitive" is a subjective evaluation not included in the definition - even though I absolutely agree with that description.  Furthermore, the idea that it wasn't emphasized strikes me as downright false. 

Heck, one of the three styles available to Geralt was specifically for the purpose of killing enemies that had you utterly surrounded.  And I used it.  A lot.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:20 .

[bsbcaer]

slimgrin wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

I'm so mother ****ing hardcore I play every game on 640x480 resolution so i can see all the individual pixels

I play with a stick and a hoop. Beat that.

I pick up a stick from the ground and run around saying "pew pew pew" (Yes, Im a mage dammit! 

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...
Haven't played the Witcher, but again, based on your definition, it sounds like a "Hack and Slash" even if "the combat was basic and not emphasized" -- from what I gathered, the Witcher involves close combat with short-range weapons

I have played The Witcher, and applying the definition cited in the article it most definitely qualifies.  All combat in the game was close combat with swords (and short-range spells).  The fact it is "repetitive" is a subjective evaluation not included in the definition - even though I absolutely agree with that description.  Furthermore, the idea that it wasn't emphasized strikes me as downright false. 

I've clarified that the standard defintion quoted can be expandable and interpreted in many ways. Do I believe The Witcher was hack-n-slash? No because half the combat gameplay (other half dedicated to swords) was dedicated to alchemy. And the general gameplay focused more on story rather than combat (and sycnhronized clicking on a target to kill isn't combat emphasized enough to qualify on the level of hack-n-slash game like Diablo).

[Seb Hanlon]

Oh, boy, another thread about definitions, taxonomy, and my-genre-can-beat-up-your-genre! I think most of the people in this thread have been through this argument enough times already. If we can't find anything DA2-related to talk about other than "what kind of game is DA2, and does it therefore suck?", I think we're done here. Consider this the warning.

Modifié par Seb Hanlon, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:20 .

[Pwnsaur]

What exactly is the argument at this point? I'm confused... Is it that the definition of 'Hack n Slash' is so poorly defined as to be in admissable? While I'll admit that a solid tangible definition is tough given our subject matter, I've given an illustration that is clearly discernable.

HnS- Diablo, Torchlight, etc.

Tactical RPG - BG, NWN, DA:O

Those are different, we can all agree right? OK, let's move on then..

If someone were to express concern over the possible 'HnS' direction the DA series is taking, based on the Combat video, it could be viewed as a legitimate concern right?

Beyond that I am struggling to understand WHAT this argument is actually about. If it is about who can provide irrefutable evidence that it *is* or *is not* one or the other, than we will have to wait a couple of months...

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:24 .

[soteria]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Which savegame editor do you use? This actually sounds like a great idea. I want to do the same for both ME1 and ME2 to be able to roleplay in a situationally coherent way and not be bound by the scores.

I wasn't able to do it in ME1 (I had to use exploits for that to bump my Charm/Intimidate, though there may be programs out now I'm not aware of) but in ME2 I use the Gibbed Save Editor.

Thanks.  I'll have to check that out for my ME2 replay... I was annoyed that sometimes it seemed like I had to make certain choices just to inflate my score to pass persuade checks later on.

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...


And what will you go by to defend DA2 is NOT a hack-n-slash? Quotes? Obviously not since the video emphasize on 'feeling' rather than 'is'. Faith? Laughable. Let's hear your side of the story.

Sure.

I use the definition I suggested upthread that hack-n-slash requires not just lots of combat, but relatively little tactics too. It's about as good a definition as I can come up with that includes what should be in the category and excludes what shouldn't be in it. I'm going to draw the line for too much tactics someplace where DAO comes out as not being hack-n-slash -- it's your ball, so it's your game.

The DA2 combat mechanics, contrary to what you keep asserting, are pretty well documented, though specific talents are not. Most things under the hood work like DAO worked. Some work differently (armor, armor penetration), but not in a way that generates less tactical gameplay. (Note that armor penetration failed in this regard in DAO). You should probably look up Peter Thomas' gameplay mechanics thread.

Now, it's possible that the way talents and spells actually work will generate less tactical gameplay. It's also possible that they will generate more tactical gameplay; DAO wasn't all that great at this in the first place. In the absence of any evidence on the talents, I see no reason to assume that things will play out any different, and so until there's further evidence I figure that DA2 will come out more or less where DAO did. 

Since according to where you put the net DAO isn't hack-n-slash, DA2 won't be either.

[upsettingshorts]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

Oh, boy, another thread about definitions, taxonomy, and my-genre-can-beat-up-your-genre!

Heh,  I don't actually have a dog in this fight.  I like them all most of them.  Though I do get into silly fights over breed names.

Seb Hanlon wrote...

I think most of the people in this thread have been through this argument enough times already.

That's for sure.

Seb Hanlon wrote...

If we can't find anything DA2-related to talk about other than "what kind of game is DA2, and does it therefore suck?", I think we're done here. Consider this the warning.

Something on topic and DA2 related in a topic titled "From: Hardcore RPG gamer" that doesn't turn into a debate about genres?  

I'd be all for it.  But I honestly can't think of anything.  Personally I woulda locked this thing pages ago, heh.  Since it wasn't, I just kept goin'.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:25 .

[AlanC9]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

Oh, boy, another thread about definitions, taxonomy, and my-genre-can-beat-up-your-genre! I think most of the people in this thread have been through this argument enough times already. If we can't find anything DA2-related to talk about other than "what kind of game is DA2, and does it therefore suck?", I think we're done here. Consider this the warning.

And I'll take that as my cue to exit for the night.

How come these genre-definition threads never go anywhere when we try them in Off-Topic? On the actual game boards they live forever.

[bsbcaer]

Anathemic wrote...

"Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)."

-http://dictionary.se...nd slash/en-en/

Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)

Does DA:O qualify as HnS? No, because it was a much slower and tactical combat-game.
Does The Witcher qualify as HnS? No, because the combat was basic and not emphasized that much, not to mention repetetive.
Does StarCraft 2 qualify as HnS? No, because combat is emphasized on a much larger scale rather than focused battles.
Does Halo 3 qualify as HnS? Yes, because combat is heavily emphasized and focused on how one is to kill an opponent be it fast, 'cool', magnitude, etc.

See where I'm going here?

Bolded part is my personal standard defintion, I quoted the definition above from dictionary.com to state how it doesn't apply to every aspect on determining hack-n-slash games.

Alright, combined your two posts and, once again, yanking out your definition so we can focus on it:  ""Hack and slash or hack and slay refers to a type of gameplay that emphasizes close combat with short-range weapons. "Hack and slash" was originally used to describe an aspect of pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs)." Obviously the only short-range weapons boudnary was removed with the introduction of Diablo but the fact remains it's a style of gamepaly which greatly focuses on close combat (waves of enemies, surrounding enemies, quick killing, massive killing, etc.)"

Once again, based on your definition (a style of gameplay which focuses on close combat), the orignal Dragon Age: Origins IS a Hack and Slash game.  Your definition says NOTHING about speed or tactics used (which you think takes DA:O out of the realm of Hack and Slash games).  If you believe that the game is not a Hack and Slash game, you're going to have to rethink your definition of what that genre of game is.  So, if your argument is that, based on presentation, DA2 is a Hack and Slash game, you're going to have to admit  that DA:O (and likely the Witcher) are both Hack and Slash games as well.  What Shorts and others have been trying to say is that you should focus on style (how the game plays) more than substance (how the game looks).  If you say that DA:O is NOT a Hack and Slash game because of tactics in combat and story out of combat, well we've been shown that DA2 uses the same (or similar) approach to tactics (on Console: you set up your buttons and use the radial menu; on PC: you use hotkeys to use abilities) and a similar focus on story.

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...


And what will you go by to defend DA2 is NOT a hack-n-slash? Quotes? Obviously not since the video emphasize on 'feeling' rather than 'is'. Faith? Laughable. Let's hear your side of the story.

Sure.

I use the definition I suggested upthread that hack-n-slash requires not just lots of combat, but relatively little tactics too. It's about as good a definition as I can come up with that includes what should be in the category and excludes what shouldn't be in it. I'm going to draw the line for too much tactics someplace where DAO comes out as not being hack-n-slash -- it's your ball, so it's your game.

The DA2 combat mechanics, contrary to what you keep asserting, are pretty well documented, though specific talents are not. Most things under the hood work like DAO worked. Some work differently (armor, armor penetration), but not in a way that generates less tactical gameplay. (Note that armor penetration failed in this regard in DAO). You should probably look up Peter Thomas' gameplay mechanics thread.

Now, it's possible that the way talents and spells actually work will generate less tactical gameplay. It's also possible that they will generate more tactical gameplay; DAO wasn't all that great at this in the first place. In the absence of any evidence on the talents, I see no reason to assume that things will play out any different, and so until there's further evidence I figure that DA2 will come out more or less where DAO did. 

Since according to where you put the net DAO isn't hack-n-slash, DA2 won't be either.

The only thing I got out of the post is that common game features such as armor penetration and talent trees determine tactical from hack-n-slash?

That doesn't make sesne since hack-n-slash games like Diablo and tactical RPG games like DA:O both have these features?

Is there something I'm missing here?