405 réponses à ce sujet

[YoziMaiden]

errant_knight wrote...

I like playing big damn heroes. I can be a non-heroic a-hole anytime I step out the door. I try not to, of course, but still....

Big damn heroes really are the best kind of heroes.

[Atakuma]

Modifié par Atakuma, 03 janvier 2011 - 04:59 .

[David Gaider]

Anathemic wrote...
But this term was used before, and quite frankly it sparked such controversy on it that continues even today. So by applying the same term on a sequel of the game that the term was used on which sparked such controversy isn't particularly wise don't you think?

The only controversy it causes is among the pedants who either feel the need to pigeonhole the game or prove that it wasn't what they wanted it to be. I'm sure those people would do that no matter what labels we chose to describe the game with.

Sure most of the populace here will generally understand what you are going for but the fact of the matter is that it is still controversial. It might not be a interest to you, but it is an interest to some and being this a time period before a the game's release then this adds more to already hype concerning the game, which subjectively can be taken either positive or negative, your pick.

If "most of the populace" understands what we're going for, I don't really see the problem.

[Anathemic]

David Gaider wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
But this term was used before, and quite frankly it sparked such controversy on it that continues even today. So by applying the same term on a sequel of the game that the term was used on which sparked such controversy isn't particularly wise don't you think?

The only controversy it causes is among the pedants who either feel the need to pigeonhole the game or prove that it wasn't what they wanted it to be. I'm sure those people would do that no matter what labels we chose to describe the game with.

Sure most of the populace here will generally understand what you are going for but the fact of the matter is that it is still controversial. It might not be a interest to you, but it is an interest to some and being this a time period before a the game's release then this adds more to already hype concerning the game, which subjectively can be taken either positive or negative, your pick.

If "most of the populace" understands what we're going for, I don't really see the problem.

You misinterpreted what I said.

The general populace will understand what you're going for sure, but it's controversial because it may support or go against the viewpoints on how the game should be called.

As you might have noticed, the forum is on constant debate on how they either
A) like the game direction so far
dislike the game direction so far
C) indifferent to the game direction so far

As with games being close to release, everyone wants the game to fit their own personal view of how it should be to some degree, small or large. This includes the labeling of 'dark heroic fantasy' on whether it should be properly applied to as such.

[Atakuma]

Anathemic wrote...

As with games being close to release, everyone wants the game to fit their own personal view of how it should be to some degree, small or large. This includes the labeling of 'dark heroic fantasy' on whether it should be properly applied to as such.

So what?

[KnightofPhoenix]

This is just my personal wish that I know will probably never be fulfilled and I am not expecting it to. But might as well say something.

I want a game that puts the protagonist in a position of real leadership. And by that, I don't mean a bunch of exceptional followers who can beat whole armies because they are that awesome. I mean actual armies and communities under our command. Now I am not suggesting it becomes like an RTS, which often lack the means to potray leaders as what they are first and foremost, human beings.

Maybe the RPG genre can, in my wildest dreams perhaps, address this deficiency. Sure, people want action, but many notable leaders fought alongside their men as well. It wouldn't be impossible to have a general sense of leadership plus actual personal involvement in the storyline.

Something like Alexander, or David, or Sargon of Akkad. Tales that do not involve fighting off some kind of evil, or extra-ordinary threats. But things that are more realistic and human, like forging an empire. Uniting a people. Liberating a country. Ending a civil war. Sure there is always an enemy and yes they are villified, but they usually weren't mindless. It was groups fighting each other for realistic objectives and mostly understandable reasons. DA:O is much more enjoyable to me if I see the Blight in the bg and focus on my character's rise to power really (if only the civil war was explored more).

Now this might happen in DA2 and I really hope that the Qunari won't end up being villified. But I somehow feel that the Qunari won't be that major in DA2 and it will somehow end up involving a bigger than life threat symbolized by Flemeth.

But I understand it's a fantasy genre and I guess what I am wishing is to keep fantasy at a minimum. Real heroes, for me, are not Hercules type figures. They are exceptional individuals who forge a legend of themselves via their leadership and end up, mostly, benefiting their own people (and they could be bad to others). However, like I said, I am not expecting anything. Hoping, not expecting.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:24 .

[Maria Caliban]

We can't even agree if DA2 is a 'true RPG' or a 'hack-n-slash.' I don't think it's BioWare's fault that fans like to debate semantics.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I want a game that puts the protagonist in a position of real leadership.

Amusingly, this is the opposite of what I want. In most BioWare games you join an organization or movement - Jedi, Spirit Monk, Spectre, Grey Wardens - who are killed off or moved to the side so I can play some sort of lone wolf who manages to take charge.

I liked NWN because I felt as though I were part of something bigger than myself when I spoke to Aribeth or Aern.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:27 .

[Anathemic]

Atakuma wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

As with games being close to release, everyone wants the game to fit their own personal view of how it should be to some degree, small or large. This includes the labeling of 'dark heroic fantasy' on whether it should be properly applied to as such.

So what?

Pay attention to the conversation and you will understand 'so what?'

The 'so what' part was that people want the game like the see it and will argue to support their view. Mr. Gaider here directly or indirectly supported it was my point because he willingly used the term 'dark heroic fantasy' fully knowing that the term was controversial and will be debatable.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
We can't even agree if DA2 is a 'true RPG' or a 'hack-n-slash.' I don't think it's BioWare's fault that fans like to debate semantics.

Correct. We couldn't stop you if we tried, so feel free to debate the semantics of "RPG", "hack and slash", "dark heroic fantasy" etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm not sure what anyone thinks we should do about it in particular. We've explained our interpretation as well as we can; anyone who wishes to take it further than that and use it as the gist for their particular argument can do so if it makes them happy.

Anathemic wrote...
The 'so what' part was that people want the
game like the see it and will argue to support their view. Mr. Gaider
here directly or indirectly supported it was my point because he
willingly used the term 'dark heroic fantasy' fully knowing that the
term was controversial and will be debatable.

Actually, I used it not caring that some people might consider it controversial or debateable. Manufactured controversy doesn't interest me much, as I said.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:29 .

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This is just my personal wish that I know will probably never be fulfilled and I am not expecting it to. But might as well say something.

I want a game that puts the protagonist in a position of real leadership. And by that, I don't mean a bunch of exceptional followers who can beat whole armies because they are that awesome. I mean actual armies and communities under our command.

You want BioWare version of King of the Dragon Pass
... okay, actually i want that. But it just happens to more or less fit what you're after, too

[Atakuma]

Edit: Just read Mr. Gaiders post

Modifié par Atakuma, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:33 .

[AlanC9]

Maria Caliban wrote...

We can't even agree if DA2 is a 'true RPG' or a 'hack-n-slash.' I don't think it's BioWare's fault that fans like to debate semantics.

Yeah, I was there for that mess too.

It's funny that this sort of thing happens on game boards. I don't generally see it elsewhere. You try to start a fight over Battlestar Galactica not really being SF and all you'll provoke is a few yawns.

I think it's because gamers tend to use classification moves as a way to devalue something while pretending to be objective about it. But that's a symptom, not a cause.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria Caliban wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I want a game that puts the protagonist in a position of real leadership.

Amusingly, this is the opposite of what I want. In most BioWare games you join an organization or movement - Jedi, Spirit Monk, Spectre, Grey Wardens - who are killed off or moved to the side so I can play some sort of lone wolf who manages to take charge.

I liked NWN because I felt as though I were part of something bigger than myself when I spoke to Aribeth or Aern.

But we are never in a position of real leadership. At best, we are the leaders of a small awesome squad that can defy everything in its wake. That's it.

[SeanMurphy2]

I liked the way they did things in DA:O. Rather than structure it around extremes of good and evil.

I did not hesitate to knock out Isolde and kill Connor. Seeing so much death, suffering and destruction cultivated a more ruthless mentality to do whatever it takes.


The motivations of the protagonist and villian felt more like a natural outcome of the situation they found themselves in. Rather than self consciously deciding to be a scheming evil villain.

I could relate to Loghain a bit. He needs internal stability within the Kingdom to defend it against Orlais and the Darkspawn. He has to do some ruthless things.

Also when the stakes are so high. You become impatient with small annoyances like weaker nobles or bandits trying to oppose you. So there is a temptation to use your power to smack them down. I  impatiently killed off all the Werewolves because they opposed me.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:51 .

[Teddie Sage]

After 40 times or so, I can say yes. I'm sick of saving the world.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This is just my personal wish that I know will probably never be fulfilled and I am not expecting it to. But might as well say something.

I want a game that puts the protagonist in a position of real leadership. And by that, I don't mean a bunch of exceptional followers who can beat whole armies because they are that awesome. I mean actual armies and communities under our command.

You want BioWare version of King of the Dragon Pass
... okay, actually i want that. But it just happens to more or less fit what you're after, too

Huh, yea something like that.

I especially like the "plot, politics" thing.

[Anathemic]

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
We can't even agree if DA2 is a 'true RPG' or a 'hack-n-slash.' I don't think it's BioWare's fault that fans like to debate semantics.

Correct. We couldn't stop you if we tried, so feel free to debate the semantics of "RPG", "hack and slash", "dark heroic fantasy" etc. etc. ad nauseum. I'm not sure what anyone thinks we should do about it in particular. We've explained our interpretation as well as we can; anyone who wishes to take it further than that and use it as the gist for their particular argument can do so if it makes them happy.

Anathemic wrote...
The 'so what' part was that people want the
game like the see it and will argue to support their view. Mr. Gaider
here directly or indirectly supported it was my point because he
willingly used the term 'dark heroic fantasy' fully knowing that the
term was controversial and will be debatable.

Actually, I used it not caring that some people might consider it controversial or debateable. Manufactured controversy doesn't interest me much, as I said.

That's why i used the term 'indirectly' to relate to your indifference to the issue.

[errant_knight]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I like playing big damn heroes.

A Firefly RPG would be cool.

Yes. Yes, it would.

YoziMaiden wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I like playing big damn heroes. I can be a non-heroic a-hole anytime I step out the door. I try not to, of course, but still....

Big damn heroes really are the best kind of heroes.

Entirely true, that's for certain.

Modifié par errant_knight, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:42 .

[AlanC9]

Anathemic wrote...

That's why i used the term 'indirectly' to relate to your indifference to the issue.

Which means.... what? He's being indifferent to the issue. Should he be not-indifferent? You really think that there's some sort of neutral language out there that wouldn't let you drag the thread into the weeds if you wanted to?

[TheRevanchist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This is just my personal wish that I know will probably never be fulfilled and I am not expecting it to. But might as well say something.

I want a game that puts the protagonist in a position of real leadership. And by that, I don't mean a bunch of exceptional followers who can beat whole armies because they are that awesome. I mean actual armies and communities under our command. Now I am not suggesting it becomes like an RTS, which often lack the means to potray leaders as what they are first and foremost, human beings.

Maybe the RPG genre can, in my wildest dreams perhaps, address this deficiency. Sure, people want action, but many notable leaders fought alongside their men as well. It wouldn't be impossible to have a general sense of leadership plus actual personal involvement in the storyline.

Something like Alexander, or David, or Sargon of Akkad. Tales that do not involve fighting off some kind of evil, or extra-ordinary threats. But things that are more realistic and human, like forging an empire. Uniting a people. Liberating a country. Ending a civil war. Sure there is always an enemy and yes they are villified, but they usually weren't mindless. It was groups fighting each other for realistic objectives and mostly understandable reasons. DA:O is much more enjoyable to me if I see the Blight in the bg and focus on my character's rise to power really (if only the civil war was explored more).

Now this might happen in DA2 and I really hope that the Qunari won't end up being villified. But I somehow feel that the Qunari won't be that major in DA2 and it will somehow end up involving a bigger than life threat symbolized by Flemeth.

But I understand it's a fantasy genre and I guess what I am wishing is to keep fantasy at a minimum. Real heroes, for me, are not Hercules type figures. They are exceptional individuals who forge a legend of themselves via their leadership and end up, mostly, benefiting their own people (and they could be bad to others). However, like I said, I am not expecting anything. Hoping, not expecting.

So...Mount & Blade: Warpath?

[KnightofPhoenix]

kylecouch wrote...
So...Mount & Blade: Warpath?

I just discovered its existence.

I'll check it out asap. Thanks!

[TheRevanchist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
So...Mount & Blade: Warpath?

I just discovered its existence.

I'll check it out asap. Thanks!

No proplem...always happy to point people toward one of the hidden gems of the world.

[jedishephard]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

I'd rather save the world then destroy it, can't have much fun in a destroyed world.

Not true...look at the krogan's homeworld if you played ME2...tons of fun haha

[Anathemic]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

That's why i used the term 'indirectly' to relate to your indifference to the issue.

Which means.... what? He's being indifferent to the issue. Should he be not-indifferent? You really think that there's some sort of neutral language out there that wouldn't let you drag the thread into the weeds if you wanted to?

Which means if you're going to remain indifferent then stay indifferent. It doesn't help if your just going to add to the flames or argument and debate and be all like "lolz funny".