992 réponses à ce sujet

[StormbringerGT]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Do you like the 3 path "RPG" system?

Yes.

I deny that the 3 paths were there prior to ME.

There were more than 3 paths. although a lot of them seemed to steer the conversation in the same one. Some of them even had the NPCs answer the same way. It just felt like you had more choices, even if you didn't.

[rob_k]

WilliamShatner wrote...

And what a load of bollox that
was!  Harry should have been paired up with Hermione and Ron should have
been paired up with Ginny.  Sometimes fans do know better.

Ron should have paired up with his sister? (I think it was his sister anyway!)

On-topic though, agreed with Razaroh's post. And to be fair, i think a lot of people already downloaded the demo expecting to not like it sadly. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But that's what it feels like.

I had no doubts I'd like it personally, because I find whatever info I can about a game that I'm interested in.

Modifié par rob_k, 24 février 2011 - 08:55 .

[StormbringerGT]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Over on the ME2 board someone -- IIRC Walker White, who sometimes posts here -- pointed out that while there's a lot of chatter about how Bio's now catering to all the new players who don't really like RPGs, the real long-term RPG fans are fairly likely to approve of Bio is experimenting with different mechanics. Probably because we've seen mechanics come and go over the decades. It's the gamers a bit younger than us who are more committed to mechanics circa 2000 as The Way RPGs Ought To Be.

The genre had already staerted to go wrong by 2000.

Theres nothing wrong with a company who caters to a larger audience. It just sucks if you are not part of that larger audience.

[elearon1]

Marionetten wrote...
 Is there truly such a massive difference between having sarcastic Hawke, angry Hawke and diplomatic Hawke versus having chaotic neutral Hawke, chaotic evil Hawke and chaotic good Hawke? 

Not to be pedantic here ... HA HA HA, that's not true!  Totally to be pedantic here: I'd say they more aligned up with Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Neutral or Lawful Evil. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

StormbringerGT wrote...

There were more than 3 paths. although a lot of them seemed to steer the conversation in the same one. Some of them even had the NPCs answer the same way. It just felt like you had more choices, even if you didn't.

You did have more choices.

People keep saying that the outcomes were the same, but that's not true.  Yes, the NPC behaviour was the same, and the state of the world was the same, but the state of your character was not.

Why your character did something, and how your character interpreted something, is part of the outcome.  You can't just ignore those and claim you're still describing the sum of the outcome.

[The-Sapient]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

So go tell one.

[StormbringerGT]

rob_k wrote...

Ron should have paired up with his sister? (I think it was his sister anyway!)

On-topic though, agreed with Razaroh's post. And to be fair, i think a lot of people already downloaded the demo expecting to not like it sadly. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But that's what it feels like.

I had no doubts I'd like it personally, because I find whatever info I can about a game that I'm interested in.

Judging by theses forums "a lot" doesn't seem to be too many. They are just very vocal, and some of them have every right to be.

[TheJist]

StormbringerGT wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Over on the ME2 board someone -- IIRC Walker White, who sometimes posts here -- pointed out that while there's a lot of chatter about how Bio's now catering to all the new players who don't really like RPGs, the real long-term RPG fans are fairly likely to approve of Bio is experimenting with different mechanics. Probably because we've seen mechanics come and go over the decades. It's the gamers a bit younger than us who are more committed to mechanics circa 2000 as The Way RPGs Ought To Be.

The genre had already staerted to go wrong by 2000.

Theres nothing wrong with a company who caters to a larger audience. It just sucks if you are not part of that larger audience.

Sucks is a minor way of putting if gaming is your main hobby or source of entertainment.

[Zachriel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Razaroh wrote...

I thought the point of an RPG was to tell a story.

I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

Oh?  So you wrote the story for Dragon Age, then? 

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Over on the ME2 board someone -- IIRC Walker White, who sometimes posts here -- pointed out that while there's a lot of chatter about how Bio's now catering to all the new players who don't really like RPGs, the real long-term RPG fans are fairly likely to approve of Bio is experimenting with different mechanics. Probably because we've seen mechanics come and go over the decades. It's the gamers a bit younger than us who are more committed to mechanics circa 2000 as The Way RPGs Ought To Be.

The genre had already staerted to go wrong by 2000.

Some people have just become resigned to it.
The problem  is that Bioware does not have an competition,Bethesda makes very different games. We need someone like Obsidian who made PST (who unfortunately failed horribly with KOTOR II).
The best thing I can say about ME2 and DA2 is they are the best of a bad situation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The-Sapient wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

So go tell one.

An RPG gives me a framework in which to do that.  I get a bunch of other characters to which my characters can react.

I get to create a character (or characters), and set him (or them) loose in the world to see what happens.

If I get to control everyone in the game, then what happens is effectively pre-determined by me.  That's less fun.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 février 2011 - 08:58 .

[StormbringerGT]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StormbringerGT wrote...

There were more than 3 paths. although a lot of them seemed to steer the conversation in the same one. Some of them even had the NPCs answer the same way. It just felt like you had more choices, even if you didn't.

You did have more choices.

People keep saying that the outcomes were the same, but that's not true.  Yes, the NPC behaviour was the same, and the state of the world was the same, but the state of your character was not.

Why your character did something, and how your character interpreted something, is part of the outcome.  You can't just ignore those and claim you're still describing the sum of the outcome.

I don't feel the state of my character changed at all. At least in the game engine. Maybe in my mind I might have imagined him evolving or something like that, but the game didn't seem to recognize that I was being snarky all the time. It would allow me to 180 my personaility all the time at any time.

The Dragon Age series seems to be like its focusing more on the state of the world and NPC behaviour more than your character but we as players wanted it to focus more on our players and thus our unhappiness (not me personally).

[Marionetten]

elearon1 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
Is there truly such a massive difference between having sarcastic Hawke, angry Hawke and diplomatic Hawke versus having chaotic neutral Hawke, chaotic evil Hawke and chaotic good Hawke?

Not to be pedantic here ... HA HA HA, that's not true! Totally to be pedantic here: I'd say they more aligned up with Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Neutral or Lawful Evil.

True enough about Lawful Good. I still stand by Chaotic Neutral ( my favorite alignment, I might add! ) and I do find Lawful Evil highly debatable. Judgement certainly supports the notion but there's plenty of chaotic rage to go around. Perhaps Neutral Evil as you also suggested? That way we've got the whole range covered.

Modifié par Marionetten, 24 février 2011 - 09:01 .

[StormbringerGT]

The-Sapient wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

So go tell one.

The point of an RPG to you is to let you tell a Story. The Point of an RPG to me is to play and role and participate in the story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zachriel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Razaroh wrote...

I thought the point of an RPG was to tell a story.

I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

Oh?  So you wrote the story for Dragon Age, then? 

Absolutely.  It was me, the player, who decided why each of my characters made any particular decision, and what they ultimately did in Ferelden.  Some of them even failed to defeat the Blight.

I don't see how I can do that with the paraphrase system because I can't tell what it is I'm selecting.

[Demx]

In all honesty, I think the dialogue trees are shallower then they were in Origins. They are more like Awakening.

[Sylvius the Mad]

StormbringerGT wrote...

 The Point of an RPG to me is to play and role and participate in the story.

That works, too.

My concern with the dialogue system in DA2 (and ME and ME2) is that I'm not given the ability to do that.

[StormbringerGT]

TheJist wrote...

StormbringerGT wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Over on the ME2 board someone -- IIRC Walker White, who sometimes posts here -- pointed out that while there's a lot of chatter about how Bio's now catering to all the new players who don't really like RPGs, the real long-term RPG fans are fairly likely to approve of Bio is experimenting with different mechanics. Probably because we've seen mechanics come and go over the decades. It's the gamers a bit younger than us who are more committed to mechanics circa 2000 as The Way RPGs Ought To Be.

The genre had already staerted to go wrong by 2000.

Theres nothing wrong with a company who caters to a larger audience. It just sucks if you are not part of that larger audience.

Sucks is a minor way of putting if gaming is your main hobby or source of entertainment.

Very true. But again from a business stand point its better for a little suckage for the minority than major suckage from the majority.

[Zachriel]

I don't see how I can do that with the paraphrase system because I can't tell what it is I'm selecting.

Nevermind the icons that indicate what kind of dialogue option you're about to select, or the brief line of text that sums it up. Yes, no clue whatsoever what your'e about to say or do.

[DreGregoire]

No, I do not like the wheel for the simple reason that I choose 1 of 3 response types and I don't know what my character is really going to say. I don't mind only having 3 choices what I mind is not being able to see what I'm going to say. It makes things feel out of sync at times. It made playing a demo without the ability to save very frusterating. I'm of the opinion that a person is not ever just one type of person, so one moment I might be really angel like to my mother, but the next I might decide to not tolerate a persons behavior (for what ever reason). Put the full response up as a wheel choice and I have no issue with the system

Edit: As I've said in other similar posts this wheel system and other changes has made me realize that although I will thorougly enjoy the game it will not hold my time or attention like DAO did. I'm okay with that though because it means I can play it a few times and get back to DAO like I do with other games that are more similiar to the new direction Dragon Age developers are taking.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 24 février 2011 - 09:05 .

[Galad22]

StormbringerGT wrote...


Theres nothing wrong with a company who caters to a larger audience. It just sucks if you are not part of that larger audience.

Not to be ass, but only reason Bioware had a change to start catering to larger audience was because rpg players liked their games like Baldur's Gate and Kotor.

So really they shouldn't have such rush to throw their most loyal fans to trash bin just to cater for more and more people.

[rob_k]

StormbringerGT wrote...

Judging by theses forums "a lot" doesn't seem to be too many. They are just very vocal, and some of them have every right to be.

Agreed, I've always thought that but the polls prove it basically.

The thing is, if we could disregard the whole dialog wheel thing for a moment, would it help people feel as though they're playing a role if they find that their choices lead to the game shaping itself around them more than Origins ever did? (And by this, I don't mean just a little better. Because I believe it'll be good in this regard, not incredible, but good.)

Modifié par rob_k, 24 février 2011 - 09:04 .

[StormbringerGT]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zachriel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Razaroh wrote...

I thought the point of an RPG was to tell a story.

I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

Oh?  So you wrote the story for Dragon Age, then? 

Absolutely.  It was me, the player, who decided why each of my characters made any particular decision, and what they ultimately did in Ferelden.  Some of them even failed to defeat the Blight.

I don't see how I can do that with the paraphrase system because I can't tell what it is I'm selecting.

You are abosultely right actually. You can't. You can nudge all you want but at the end of the day the Game is going to end how it was written to end, even if you have a couple of different options. None of those options may be how you wanted it to end.

[Zachriel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StormbringerGT wrote...

 The Point of an RPG to me is to play and role and participate in the story.

That works, too.

My concern with the dialogue system in DA2 (and ME and ME2) is that I'm not given the ability to do that.

How are you not?  In DA:O you selected numeric responses from the list.  In DA2 you select responses from a wheel.  Either way, you're just selecting an option to input in the game. Characters still react to what you say.  The story will (presumably) still be influenced to the same extent.

[SomeBug]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Zachriel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Razaroh wrote...

I thought the point of an RPG was to tell a story.

I think the point of an RPG is to let me tell a story.

Oh?  So you wrote the story for Dragon Age, then? 

Absolutely.  It was me, the player, who decided why each of my characters made any particular decision, and what they ultimately did in Ferelden.  Some of them even failed to defeat the Blight.

I don't see how I can do that with the paraphrase system because I can't tell what it is I'm selecting.

You were given the illusion of choice in Dragon Age 1. It's funny how you think you actually decided anything. Look at the conversation trees in the game and see how they split then reform to the same conclusions. All you ever did in DA1 was choose the tone and route by which you ended up at the exact same conclusion. This is true of Dragon Age, of Mass Effect. Of every RPG game other than ones constructed in your collective imagination (for example, pnp Dungeons and Dragons).

Get over yourself if you think the 3 path system is

1) Any different than what went before.

2) That paraphrasing is any more or less contraining than pre-determined set replies.

3) That the icons are hard to understand to easily infer tone and content