255 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ten years from now I hope my all-time top 5 games list doesn't still end in 2003.

I know mine won't.

Mine are currently 1985, 1989, 1998, 1999, and 2003.

1985? rly?

[XX55XX]

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I've played a little bit of BG2 a few months ago, but unfortunately, I found it somewhat hard to get into. The gameplay is fantastic, but perhaps I am so used to more polished production values that the game feels somewhat flat.

[SDNcN]

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I've played a little bit of BG2 a few months ago, but unfortunately, I found it somewhat hard to get into. The gameplay is fantastic, but perhaps I am so used to more polished production values that the game feels somewhat flat.

I played through the BG series for the first time unmodded. I was shocked at how bare everything seemed.

[Fadook]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Alodar wrote...

But at what cost?
You didn't get to choose your gender.
You didn't get to choose your name.
You didn't get to choose your character model.
You didn't get to choose your starting class.

If I have no ownership over the main character, I have no interest in the story.
Alodar

I must agree with this. However, I will say Planescape was an amazing game despite this. However I still can't play it without thinking how much better it would have been with those options.

Investment/ownership in the character is the most important factor in an RPG to me. Which is one of the reasons I just can't get into games like the Witcher. And also why I worry somewhat that the 'iconic' Hawke will take something away from the experience of DA2.

Well you got to change your class freely in the game. As for gender/name/model, Planescape would certainly not have been better if you could change these things. The entire point of the game was that it was built around a specific character who had a history. Maybe that makes it feel less pure RPG-like, but there was still plenty of room to mould the Nameless One's personality however you liked, so it's exaggerating to say you had no ownership over the main character. The volumes of backstory added more depth to the character.

This is why I'm less bothered than some over DA 2's choice to focus on Hawke. The lesson of Planescape is that it's perhaps easier to write a deeply compelling story when you take more control over the main character. Hell, books do it all the time .

Modifié par Fadook, 09 février 2011 - 09:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lem Lemoncloak wrote...

I understand what you are saying, however I think it's hard to combine a good story and interesting gameplay and at the same time cater to the exploring side of a game with finite resources. You could argue that BioWare managed it with BG however a lot of people complained about those transitional areas lacked in depth and interest. In my opinion they often became a chore, rather than fun.

That's a personal opinion of course, but I think it's the answer to why they have done it in such few games. It simply costs to much and they let the exploring part over to Bethesda and other companies.

Bethessda does some things well.  They let us explore, and they let us define our character's background ourselves.  They let us design a personality and they don't try to fiddle with it.

But, outside of FO3 they're pretty bad at desigining environments, and they only ever let us control one character, and they only offer action combat (again, except for FO3, which was easily their best game).

I'd like exploration, tactical pausable combat, a full party, and an undefined protagonist.

I can have all of these features, but I haven't been able to have them all together in 12 years.

[AlexXIV]

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I've played a little bit of BG2 a few months ago, but unfortunately, I found it somewhat hard to get into. The gameplay is fantastic, but perhaps I am so used to more polished production values that the game feels somewhat flat.

No, I wouldn't anyway. I was a kid when BG2 came out and also not used to VO or 3D graphics much. I can't really play games that are 10 years old anymore unless graphics don't matter at all. But tbh in most games graphic does matter at least a bit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BomimoDK wrote...

If anyone here forgets i'll remind you that BG2 was a fair chunk more linear and straightforward than BG1.

And it was worse.

AlexXIV wrote...

1985? rly?

Ultima IV.  The greatest CRPG of all time.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 février 2011 - 09:15 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...

If anyone here forgets i'll remind you that BG2 was a fair chunk more linear and straightforward than BG1.

And it was worse.

AlexXIV wrote...

1985? rly?

Ultima IV.  The greatest CRPG of all time.

What are the others?

[Guitar-Hero]

Well it has to be, otherwise why make it

[haberman13]

It will be better than BG2 for the console crowd. I have a feeling it won't go over so well on PC.



But, who knows? This is Bioware, ME2 could have been a fluke, clearly the talent/brain trust is still at Bioware; console profits simply have detracted from the art.

[The Revenator]

Don't hate me for this but KOTOR kicks all of thier asses. (I'm saying that out of nostalgia)

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...

If anyone here forgets i'll remind you that BG2 was a fair chunk more linear and straightforward than BG1.

And it was worse.

AlexXIV wrote...

1985? rly?

Ultima IV.  The greatest CRPG of all time.

What are the others?

1985: Ultima IV
1989: Ultima Underworld
1998: Baldur's Gate
1999: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
2003: EVE Online

Those, I think, are the 5 greatest computer games of all time.

Though I waffle on EVE.  I used to leave the spot empty just in case I found something better.  But for now it's as good a placeholder as any.  I also haven't played EVE in several years, so I don't know if it has changed.  The details of online games are irritatingly ephemeral.

[AlexXIV]

The Revenator wrote...

Don't hate me for this but KOTOR kicks all of thier asses. (I'm saying that out of nostalgia)

No you're saying it out of Star Wars fanboism.

Just kidding

[Bhaal]

dbankier wrote...

Black Isle only produced BG2, they weren't the developers, that was Bioware.

Right, my mistake

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Revenator wrote...

Don't hate me for this but KOTOR kicks all of thier asses. (I'm saying that out of nostalgia)

KotOR's a terrific game.  I've never bothered to work out a full top 10 list, but I'm confident KotOR would be on it. 

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
1985: Ultima IV
1989: Ultima Underworld
1998: Baldur's Gate
1999: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
2003: EVE Online

Those, I think, are the 5 greatest computer games of all time.

There has been quite a gap between 1989 and 1998 aswell it seems. Should give you some hope, no?

[Lem Lemoncloak]

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I've played a little bit of BG2 a few months ago, but unfortunately, I found it somewhat hard to get into. The gameplay is fantastic, but perhaps I am so used to more polished production values that the game feels somewhat flat.

Same engine? No no.

Isometric view? Yes, please.

I'd like the view and party management to be the same as BG, with strong focus on the story and sub-plots. But I don't really care for the high fantasy setting. I prefer low magic and dark fantasy setting. So and RPG set in the world of "A song of ice and fire", written by George RR Martin i colaboration with Luke Kristjanson and Chris Avellone would be perfect. Won't happen though. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
1985: Ultima IV
1989: Ultima Underworld
1998: Baldur's Gate
1999: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
2003: EVE Online

Those, I think, are the 5 greatest computer games of all time.

There has been quite a gap between 1989 and 1998 aswell it seems. Should give you some hope, no?

You'd think, but I had a dark period in there.  I didn't play any new games from 1992-1998.  I was in University, and I didn't have access to a decent PC.

[XX55XX]

Lem Lemoncloak wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I've played a little bit of BG2 a few months ago, but unfortunately, I found it somewhat hard to get into. The gameplay is fantastic, but perhaps I am so used to more polished production values that the game feels somewhat flat.

Same engine? No no.

Isometric view? Yes, please.

I'd like the view and party management to be the same as BG, with strong focus on the story and sub-plots. But I don't really care for the high fantasy setting. I prefer low magic and dark fantasy setting. So and RPG set in the world of "A song of ice and fire", written by George RR Martin i colaboration with Luke Kristjanson and Chris Avellone would be perfect. Won't happen though. 

Yeah, I like the top-down view myself when playing DAO. Third person was better for exploration. But too bad that they took that out.

I guess visuals do count for something...

[Cutlass Jack]

Fadook wrote...

This is why I'm less bothered than some over DA 2's choice to focus on Hawke. The lesson of Planescape is that it's perhaps easier to write a deeply compelling story when you take more control over the main character. Hell, books do it all the time .

In my opinion it makes for a much weaker RPG. If I want a deeply compelling story with little control over the main character, I'll read a book or watch a movie. When I play an RPG I want to feel like its my character in control over my story. I want to invest in it.

Note I said 'feel' not the actuality of it. A good rpg obviously can't allow the user every possible option under the sun. But it should allow just enough freedom to feel like they have that much control. I do think both BG2 and Origins succeeded in that regard. Mass Effect does fall a little short at times, which is why I'm a smidge worried with DA2.

But its not like the sky is falling.

[Gorthaur X]

Saibh wrote...

You guys make me want to go on a lynching of BGII. Can you not just take off your rose-colored glasses and objective view BGII for what it is? Amazing--for the time. But old, and limited by the budget, engine, and technology of the time.

You could just as well say the exact same thing about DA:O or DA2. They are good games - for their time - but limited by budget (in terms of content vs. the cost of developing that content with full voiceovers etc.), engine (3D invariably falls into immersion-breaking uncanny valley territory), and the sensibilities of the time (as evidenced by the horror expressed toward the concept of complexity in a computer game in this very thread).

That these modern sensibilities happen to match your preferences better is great; more power to you. Your preferences, however, aren't any more objective than anybody else's.

Someone used the "I played it recently!" argument, but they missed that point--that my nostalgia will always color my perception of that series. I could view it objectively, if I wanted, but I enjoyed it so much, why would I want to knock it down a peg? Nostalgia can be very good thing. It allows for me to enjoy dated things with the same wonder I did ten years ago.

Apart from that plenty of us do not have the same appreciation for every other game we used to enjoy in the days of yore, there are people who have been introduced to Baldur's Gate more recently - sometimes after DA:O, even - and still enjoyed or preferred it.

[Khayness]

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

I'd only like the epic story feel to return. That's what I love about the BG saga, that from a scared dude who can barely kill a wolf, you end up being a key figure who will shape the Realms for years to come. The storytelling and locations go excelently with that. Little villages, huge lively cities (seriously, you could spend days in Baldur's Gate/Athlaka alone), not so lively dark sewers beneath said cities (Cult of the Unseeing Eye ftw), mage prison, The Underdark, etc.

The whole series felt like playing an epos, the game was massive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gorthaur X wrote...

Apart from that plenty of us do not have the same appreciation for every other game we used to enjoy in the days of yore, there are people who have been introduced to Baldur's Gate more recently - sometimes after DA:O, even - and still enjoyed or preferred it.

Exactly.  There are all sorts of games I played in the '80s that just aren't very good when I look back at them.

Gauntlet, for example.

[Fadook]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Fadook wrote...

This is why I'm less bothered than some over DA 2's choice to focus on Hawke. The lesson of Planescape is that it's perhaps easier to write a deeply compelling story when you take more control over the main character. Hell, books do it all the time .

In my opinion it makes for a much weaker RPG. If I want a deeply compelling story with little control over the main character, I'll read a book or watch a movie. When I play an RPG I want to feel like its my character in control over my story. I want to invest in it.

But you're still getting full control over the personality of your character and your choices affect how the story goes. The personal investment is still there.

[Veex]

The title of the article seems to portray a different message than what Laidlaw has actually said in the interview, but I digress. In regards to the snippets Laidlaw is actually quoted in; I think Dragon Age 2 could easily be more tactical (as we've seen with bosses that require positional awareness etc...) and could have a cast of equally memorable characters.