237 réponses à ce sujet

[elearon1]

At least this makes it easy to keep track of the days before the release; every time I see a new thread complaining about Bioware bringing about the downfall of crpgs I know another day has passed.

[Vicious]

lamenting the disappearance of the classical cRPG is all well and fine if that's your viewpoint, but I loathe revisionist history.

And that's all it is.

Read the article. Was a big GET OFF MY LAWN, and I've been gaming since Zork. If you enjoyed this article, you need to get over yourself. Things change.

If you want complete control, break out the old pen and paper, or write FANFICS, since that's the only medium that can do it.

Modifié par Vicious, 03 mars 2011 - 01:05 .

[dreamextractor]

Now that the obligatory gif is out of the way...

"The first evidence of a departure from Origins in Dragon Age 2 is located within the character creation tools. Quite simply you cannotcreate your own character as such; you merely customise a pre-set character. Granted, you can choose your own class, first name and the options for customisation of the character may be fairly detailed but the main character comes with its own, predetermined race, identity and history."

same exact thing in Origins. You take a pre-set character, and then you customize them. The only difference is that 2 has a default Hawke, and you can't choose his race. After you create a character for Origins, their Origins rarely made a difference in the main storyline at all. They became the Warden, and they were going to stop that Blight whether we wanted them to or not. You'll get a few remarks about your race, a few nods to your Origin, but that hardly makes an impact at all.

"When you get into the game you will notice that player conversations have become much less significant as well. As far as the dialogue scenesare concerned, this is not role playing; this is interactive playing. The dialogue is so simple that it could be replaced by a choice that you make at the beginning of the game: "Do you want to be a compassionate, humorous, or obnoxious character?" After that choice, you would only have to watch the dialogue scenes play through with no player-input at all. "

We don't even know the full excent of dialogue choices we'll get, but it's still just as simple as it was in Origins. They're just grasping for straws with this whole "dialogue was SO DEEP IN ORIGINS" argument. There is really no difference from having a dialogue wheel to having your dialogue listed for you. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out the tone of the dialogue choices we were given in Origins. Really, all the dialogue icons are here for is to prevent ninjamancing.

Modifié par dreamextractor, 03 mars 2011 - 01:05 .

[Anathemic]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

The article tried to say it was due to consoles. And SW:TOR is by no definition an action RPG.

Like many other developers, BioWare have made their three main cRPG series into Action-RPGs with Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic.
There is no doubt that these will be great games, but the problem is
that they have been sculpted to what will sell, rather than making the
gaming experience that a number of players are struggling to find
nowadays. The market has always been driven by sales, but nowadays the
publishers and producers are sacrificing genres in order to make more
money. As said previously, Dragon Age: Origins was a commercial
success so there was no real need to change the game so dramatically.
This declination is inextricably tied in to the popularity of consoles
over PCs amongst today’s gamers. As gaming spreads to mass audiences,
producers and publishers are lured by the money that comes along with
it. In this case it seems that EA have encouraged BioWare to open up the
game to a bigger audience, and in doing so have lost many aspects of
the genre it once was.

The article tied the transition from DA:O to DA2 with consoles, not SW:TOR

[Melness]

Saibh wrote...

...So...who read the real article. Because I was willing to listen to this guys opinion, but...

"The first evidence of a departure from Origins in Dragon Age 2 is located within the character creation tools. Quite simply you cannot create your own character as such; you merely customise a pre-set character. Granted, you can choose your own class, first name and the options for customisation of the character may be fairly detailed but the main character comes with its own, predetermined race, identity and history. This class-based character creation is usually associated more with Action-RPGs rather than classic RPGs and is our first clue that Dragon Age has shifted towards action."

I'm sorry, but whenever I hear this, I want to punch people in the face. You know that "classic" RPG mentioned later, KoTOR? Yeah, you weren't allowed to pick the history, race, or "identity" of Revan, either. Mass Effect was mentioned, too. Nope, can't really pick Shepard's history, race, or "identity", either.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't pick the race, history, or "identity" of any of the characters in the Fallout games, either.

Congratulations, you've metaphorically punched someone on the face.

Want to be my LI?

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Saibh wrote...

...So...who read the real article. Because I was willing to listen to this guys opinion, but...

"The first evidence of a departure from Origins in Dragon Age 2 is located within the character creation tools. Quite simply you cannot create your own character as such; you merely customise a pre-set character. Granted, you can choose your own class, first name and the options for customisation of the character may be fairly detailed but the main character comes with its own, predetermined race, identity and history. This class-based character creation is usually associated more with Action-RPGs rather than classic RPGs and is our first clue that Dragon Age has shifted towards action."

I'm sorry, but whenever I hear this, I want to punch people in the face. You know that "classic" RPG mentioned later, KoTOR? Yeah, you weren't allowed to pick the history, race, or "identity" of Revan, either. Mass Effect was mentioned, too. Nope, can't really pick Shepard's history, race, or "identity", either.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't pick the race, history, or "identity" of any of the characters in the Fallout games, either.

You tell them. although i think they were pointing out ME to show that even though you couldnt in ME they still had Da.

[JoshPloof]

I agree and disagree with the article. I disagree because sometimes change is good, look at final fantasy 7, it redefined RPGs for years to come. However, I don't want ANY video games becoming interactive movies like final fantasy 13 was. I want to PLAY the game NOT WATCH it.

[Vicious]

You know that "classic" RPG mentioned later, KoTOR? Yeah, you weren't allowed to pick the history, race, or "identity" of Revan, either. Mass Effect was mentioned, too. Nope, can't really pick Shepard's history, race, or "identity", either.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't pick the race, history, or "identity" of any of the characters in the Fallout games, either.

This. The article was a complete joke to read.

[Aoba]

jacobdg wrote...

Heres the sad truth: You all complain because you follow the crowd.

And they call us sheep. Boggles the mind.

[TheOneAndOni]

I can fully understand preferring the cRPG style to modern RPGs, but I dislike the assumption that Bioware's direction is purely a result of greed. It's entirely possible that the designers' sensibilities about RPGs has changed and actually mirrors that of the masses.

Those of you that expect a company to cater to the minority that you belong to have a very narrow view of how the game development process actually works.

[gilgalad80]

I like how in every forum: Person who disagrees = troll.
I'm with the OP. It'll still be a fun game, but I lean towards the original's style more judging from the demo. Will wait and judge the final release further..

[HyperLimited]

I'm starting to lose any and all respect for the "old school" crowd when they negatively parade around like this. Never forget what the classics have brought us today, but don't be stuck in the past. Change is a part of life. Face it, embrace it, and move on, or be left in the dust. 

[MKDAWUSS]

Valid points enveloped by general QQing

[thesilverlinedviking]

I remember BioWare saying that Dragon Age Origins was supposed to play like the old-school RPGs. I don't remember them ever saying that Dragon Age II was supposed to play like them to.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

thesilverlinedviking wrote...

I remember BioWare saying that Dragon Age Origins was supposed to play like the old-school RPGs. I don't remember them ever saying that Dragon Age II was supposed to play like them to.

i think ur right. i remember them saying that the old one was a spiritual successer but the sequel would get away from that and be recognizable i as its own.

[AustinKain]

Does everyone want TEXT based rpg's back. How about Bioware get the rights and do a sequel to ZORK.

Everyone needs to realize that some people just have to complain cause thats the only time they are happy.

To do so in the privacy of a internet forum is just a scared little child acting out at the parents when they are not looking.

[MKDAWUSS]

TheOneAndOni wrote...

I dislike the assumption that Bioware's direction is purely a result of greed.

If they're not greedy they don't survive. BioWare makes money, not video games.

[expanding panic]

ToJKa1 wrote...

That reminds me, i haven't watched this weeks Zero Punctuation yet. (Edit: Heh, Two Wolds 2, how fitting ).

On topic, i personally don't care if a game follows a genre to the letter, if it's a good game, it's a good game, and that is enough.

you are a genius. Its so simple why doesn't everyone see it that way?What cares what its labeled as? If it a good game thats all that matters.

[Hathur]

Does it even matter? Are you saying that a genre needs to remain / stay the same forever, that it can never change or shift... or that a game company is forbidden from making a different type of game?

How is this idiotic argument that DA2, Mass Effect are not real RPGs even relevant? I'm a 32 year old gamer.. been playing PC games since I was 4 years old, RPGs since I was about 6 years old... I was and still am a hardcore pencil & paper Dungeons & Dragons gamer.... but I don't bemoan that video game RPGs aren't the same as they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago.... Why? Because pencil & paper rpgs have changed a lot in the 20+ years I've played them too.

At it's core, a RPG is about the characters, the story and some form of character development and / or advancement through a process of trials and challenges. How that is executed is moot... be it in a turn based method, or frenetic action flick speed..... at the end, what matters is:

1) Are the characters interesting
2) Is the story interesting
3) Are you having fun

If the answer is yes to those 3, then what else actually matters?

Rulesets DO NOT define whether or not something is a RPG or not. This whole argument is about as stupid as the D&D players who argued that 3rd edition D&D or 4th edition D&D were not true / pure D&D like AD&D was because the rulesets were "faster paced" .... the rules have NOTHING to do with whether or not something is a good RPG. Rulesets only define it something has good gameplay... but a RPG it does not make.

People argue Mass Effect isn't a RPG because it functions very much, if not entirely, like a 3rd person shooter.... once again, these people are arguing rulesets and are ignorant beyond belief. Mass Effect is every much a RPG as D&D red boxset, blue boxset, AD&D or whatever.... why? Because they are character + story driven games that focus on character development and advancement.... you are assuming the identity (or ROLEPLAYING... aka acting, aka pretending, aka make-believe) a character in a game. In this game you have some freedom to make choices on your actions, your dialogue, what equipment you carry, what type of skills you know, etc.... it is in every shape & form as much a roleplaying game as my beloved pencil & paper D&D.

Get your pretentious, arrogant, stuck up heads out of your asses and try to understand that there's infinitely more to what constitutes a roleplaying game than how the goddamn bloody stupid combat works....

"oooooh! The combat is too fast, this is no rpg!"
"oooooh! The combat is so slow and boring, this is no rpg!"

Based on everything I've seen in the demo of DA2, it fits every definition of a roleplaying game. We have:

1) A character we take control of.
2) Ability to choose what our character says (to a degree, this is afterall a video game... you want true dialogue freedom, go play a pencil & paper RPG)
3) Some degree of choice in what actions our character does
4) Ability to select what type of skills or abilities our character knows
5) Ability to advance both statistically (raising abilities & skills) and as a character through plot, & dialogue
6) Ability to choose what kind of equipment we use.

This is clearly a RPG in every sense of any other video game RPG I've ever played. If your issues are with how the combat plays out, then your issue is that of the gameplay mechanic or ruleset... NOT it as a RPG.

If you're bothered by the degree of character / story freedom you have, then you're likely not going to find appeasement until you get a few friends together around a table and learn to play a pencil & paper RPG such as Dungeons & Dragons where you have complete and total freedom to let your character do or say what he / she wishes.

Modifié par Hathur, 03 mars 2011 - 01:13 .

[Anathemic]

HyperLimited wrote...

I'm starting to lose any and all respect for the "old school" crowd when they negatively parade around like this. Never forget what the classics have brought us today, but don't be stuck in the past. Change is a part of life. Face it, embrace it, and move on, or be left in the dust. 

Final Fantasy XIII would like to have a word with you.

I'm not part of any 'old school' crowd, though I do agree with the article when it states "why fix it when it ain't broke?" (paraphrased of course).

[Half_Moon]

Wait, these guys played the demo? That's the sum of their experience with the game? All the other major online reviewers had people spending 5 hours on the full game at Bioware headquarters.

Seriously, in the demo, we had our inventories locked. What kind of game website passes judgement on a game after reviewing the demo?

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

TheOneAndOni wrote...

I dislike the assumption that Bioware's direction is purely a result of greed.

If they're not greedy they don't survive. BioWare makes money, not video games.

that doesnt mean wanting to be a success is the only factor. there is a balance. unless you make MW.

[Darji]

DTKT wrote...

Darji wrote...

F4d3s wrote...


well i cannot agree with everything in that article but i cannot deny that based on the demo and known game statistics (length of play, dialogue, more visuals rather than deeper gameplay etc), new combat mechanics/animations, etc, lack of in depth personalization, various class playability, and so on, Bioware/EA are definitely trying to make the game have more commercial appeal and cater to more of the masses and perhaps console gamers. Whether or not the actual game is victim to this remains to be seen and I will withhold final judgement until I play the game. 

Bottom line is, billion dollar companies such as EA and perhaps Bioware are out to make the most profits and they will be loyal to their board before they are loyal to their fans. Have run my own company, I get it and I would probably do the same..

Of course but this is a great chance. People aare starving for a real tactival old school RPG  like  experience. And thats why the Witcher 2 is so popular these days. Yes the combat is also action oriented which isnt that bead becaused its not a party based game but all the other stuff is much much more old school and RPG like than anything out there at the moment.

And clrealy it shows that this kind of thinking is not bad at all. It will succeed the 1.5 million from the Witcher by far. And thats on the PC alone.

Please elaborate because honestly, the Witcher 2 is probably the least old school RPG game if I take into consideration the complain of the "old-timers" with DAII.

Ok i will try it and compare it to Baldurs Gate 2. Without mentioning the combatsystem.

First of all the World  itself. Baldurs gates world felt alive it was very very detailed and atmospheric. The same goes for the Witcher 2. They really cared about the world itself. You cant reach every part of the game in one playthrough for example. Or its very open world like in the chapters itself and its only restricted to stronger monsters you just cant beat. Now look at Dragon Age 2: Corridor level, lifeless and no details at all. It looks sterile and souless. Yes even Kirkwall. I posted a video of Kirwall in the day already.

Secondly the depth of the dialoguesystem: Yes its mostly paraphfrased too but still you see another level of detail in these conversations. Its not the good or bad or rival and Friend think . ITs not black and white like in Dragon Age 2. ITs much darker overall yes but the same goes for Baldurs gate.

Next the whole system of crafting, equipment mentionment etc. Every bit of it was cutted out in Dragon Age 2 while you still have all this in a deepsystem in the Witcher 2.

And finally its about the communication with the community itself. Instead like Bioware who almost irgnores everything Origins fans said CD Project listend very carefully to the community. They really cared about the game and the people who will play it. Bioware just rushed it out in less than 2 years. With much repetiotion, and the same areas over and over again. aldurs Gate was a craftmanshio compared to Dragon Age 2. It wasnt rushed the whole series was carefully crafted. Just like the World in The witcher 2.

And thats why old school gamers and RPG fans are much more interested in The witcher instead of Dragon Age 2.

[addiction21]

Edit: Not even worth the effort

Modifié par addiction21, 03 mars 2011 - 01:15 .