12 réponses à ce sujet

[ibortolis]

worth reading it

http://www.hookedgam...lassic_rpg.html

a small summary,thanks to gamebanshee:

"None of this would be so much of an issue if BioWare lived up to their
promises and actually provided two viable styles of playing the game.
Everyone can sympathise with their decision to add real-time combat to
the game and make it easier for new players to get into the game, in
fact we support it. The more people you can get to play your game the
better; cRPGs are notoriously hard to start off with so making things a
bit easier for beginners is great. However, the issue arises when you
change the very core of the game. The real time combat should in fact be
harder to play. At the beginning of The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall,
players were asked if they would like high or low player reflexes
enabled, the slower being easier because players could adopt “a more
cautious and thoughtful playstyle”. This is the kind of option that
should be given in Dragon Age 2. Instead the game only truly caters to
the fast, button-mashing style.

Playing with these kinds of
settings just isn’t right for the traditional pause-play style. People
have argued that if you want that traditional experience then you can
simply play on a harder game mode, but this does not solve it. The
difficulty simply makes the game harder with modifiers such as friendly
fire (in nightmare mode) tougher enemies and so on, but it is still
played as an Action-RPG. While playing the demo, pausing the game to
issue an attack on an enemy just felt completely ridiculous, as they
would have already landed 3 attacks on you by the time you have done
one. The only possible way to do it is to pause and unpause the game
every half a second, therefore forcing players to simply mash buttons
until the enemy is dead. Dragon Age 2 is a real-time Action-RPG, and so
having the pause-play (that only really works with the slower pace of
turn-based RPG’s) is just an unnecessary feature rather than another way
to play through the game.

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.


Worse still, there are signs that the game has been rushed out to meet
publisher demands. The graphics are not going to mesmerise anyone, in
fact they don’t look any better compared to Origins, environments are
fairly dull looking but worst of all is weak level design. The review in
PC Games has said that the majority of Dragon Age 2 plays out very much
like the demo, meaning a lot of copy-pasted and narrow paths - ugly.
Narrow paths in an RPG is actually an oxymoron as the genre requires
freedom and an open world and should not be bottle-necking its players.
What this effect does however, is focus the game more towards combat as
is the nature of an action-RPG. It’s quite understandable that all of
these shortcomings have occurred as BioWare are making an effort to
bring out all three of their big RPGs in one year. Given that Dragon Age
2 has only had a maximum of two years in development, many of us
suspected that the game would fall short in some areas. This lack of an
open world, combined with the simple combat means that the game slides
even further from its origins. "

Modifié par ibortolis, 04 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[John Epler]

Hey, look, the 'I like X game so your tastes are irrelevant' tangent. Haven't seen that in.. oh, eleven hours. And I was asleep for 9 of them.

Bring it back on-topic, and cut it out with the 'your tastes are invalid!' stuff. This goes for both sides of the argument - someone is allowed to prefer the older style of game without being accused of 'living in the past' and being 'elitist', and by the same token, someone is allowed to prefer the newer style of game without being accused of being dumb, or having ADD or whatever else the phrase du jour is.

Seriously. If you aren't going to discuss points, but instead want to do nothing but attack the other side, then don't bother posting.

[John Epler]

Rawgrim wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Or maybe you like to paint DA2 as a fantastic game, to make everyone see how superior YOUR taste is, and in the process painting older rpgs as "lesser" rpgs.

I'm not the one trying to tell everyone what is wrong with DA2, and no where did I mention how much better or worse DA2 is. My point was, you can't come into a topic claiming another game did it better, when it only did it better because you liked it more.

Forgive me for not being a Ultima fan though.

I was merely listing up stuff in DA2, that was relevant to why the article in question, felt rpgs were in decline. Lack of choices being removed etc, an compared it to older games. Never said DA2 was better or worse.

its ok not to be a fan of Ultima, mate. Personally I can`t stand the older ones. Or the last two, for that matter.

Ultima VII was the best Ultima, anyways.

This is scientific fact. I have charts.

[John Epler]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Ultima VII was the best Ultima, anyways.

This is scientific fact. I have charts.

Now you remind me of Ultima VII. I'm going to search trough my old belonging to see if I still keep the copy. 

Ha! I spent a long time tracking down a copy of the Ultima Collection a good while back. Now, of course, I can barely play them on my computer, but still. At least I own them.

@Rawgrim - I know that Pagan came with a coin. I think VII came with the Fellowship Amulet as well as the standard cloth map. I still have the latter, no idea what happened to the former.

Anyways, I'm pulling this off-topic myself.  Let's return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[Seb Hanlon]

Knock it off, everyone. Bans have been handed out.

[John Epler]

F4d3s wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

F4d3s wrote...

Veracruz wrote...

I want my RPGs to be good and interesting. The flavor (classic, action, sim) is irrelevant as long as they are good and interesting for me.

i hope so too but based on known game statistics (dialogue, game play length, etc) it seems like alot of 'meat and potatoes' has also been replaced by cinematics..

Because cinematics are just blank spaces within a story arc, right?

cinematic substitutions instead of dialogue choices and gameplay length, etc, in my opinion, makes the game more linear and less personal. Im specfulating of course until the game comes out and i hope im wrong.

Actually, the way we do our cinematics, the writers go in, write everything, and then the cinematics guys go in and turn certain lines into cutscenes - if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

You're still getting the same amount of dialogue and writing as you otherwise would, only we try to make it more visually interesting, and where we can - we show instead of tell. Saying 'HE IS GOING CRAZY' is a less effective narrative technique than showing he's going crazy with the use of things such as hitchcock zooms, camera tilts and specific gestures.

'Cinematics', in this case, rarely refers to the traditional lengthy non-interactive cutscene, but rather responses and dialogues that are in the game either way, just in this case we add a little extra polish to make the important moments feel important.

[John Epler]

BobSmith101 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
'Cinematics', in this case, rarely refers to the traditional lengthy non-interactive cutscene, but rather responses and dialogues that are in the game either way, just in this case we add a little extra polish to make the important moments feel important.

For example when Hawkes mom is cradling his sibling? 

Just curious about this, but around what % is the redundancy of cinematics? How many of those 2500 can we expect to see in one playthrough?

I'd say, roughly, anywhere from 800-1000? A lot of the branching that happens with the game means you'll only see certain cinematics on one playthrough, as well as the traditional 'if you choose option A, B or C in a conversation you see a different cinematic'.

That's a very rough guess, though, and I'm basing that solely on my own experience with the content I was responsible for.

[Seb Hanlon]

FearMonkey wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

(snip)

Well, partially, but there are some situations that would make it otherwise.

For instance, say we are talking to a demon and it tempts us with an offer of power or something in exchange for freedom.  Here, the diplomatic option would likely be the one to take the deal as that is the nature of diplomacy.  Agressive would more likely invoke an attack on the demon.

Typical RPG moral standards indicate that deals with demons are bad.  THerefore DA2's wheel system is certainly less constricted on moral guidelines than ME1/2 was.

Your example is slightly flawed in that the Diplomatic option would not be to take the deal, it would be to politely tell the demon to stuff it up it's rear end in as diplomatic a way as possible.

The option to take the deal would probably be another option on the left side of the dialog wheel. At least it would given how it worked in Mass Effect 2.

Actually, if my understanding of the way that conversations are constructed in DA2 is correct, making a choice (take the deal/don't take the deal) would be a choice node (icons with swirly arrows). Choice nodes don't have tone on the options. The resulting dialogue might vary depending on your character's preferred tone (established through previous tone choices in conversations).

So if you're typically diplomatic, you might diplomatically tell the demon to shove it, or diplomatically accept. Same for the other two tones.

Now, in a completely hypothetical situation, there could be a conversation where following an aggressive path might lead to the demon taking offense and never actually offering you the deal. I don't know enough about the actual content
of DA2 or the rules that writers operate under when building
conversations to say if this actually occurs. But it's theoretically possible.

Modifié par Seb Hanlon, 05 mars 2011 - 12:01 .

[David Gaider]

Just a warning that there's been far too much "what is an RPG?" discussion as it is. If you wish to have a discussion on the nature of RPG's, please take it to Off Topic. If you wish to discuss RPG features in DA2 itself, please do so. But we're skirting an edge, here. Just because DA2 *is* an RPG doesn't mean it's free license for everyone to grind their personal axes on what kinds of RPG's they prefer which DA2 isn't.

Duly warned.

[John Epler]

Here's a point I made earlier, and I'm going to make it again.

If you can disagree in a civil, rational fashion with each other, great! We welcome everyone's opinion, whether positive or negative, so long as they're able to share that opinion without resorting to insults and derogatory comments.

If you are unable to accept that someone might have a different opinion than yourself and feel the need to express yourself with insulting and vitriolic statements, then don't bother posting.

[John Epler]

Hey, there's a swear filter for a reason.

Trying to find clever ways around it is not acceptable.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's not turn this into yet another "what is and is not an RPG?" discussion, please.

[John Epler]

That's enough of the 'what is a JRPG/WRPG' tangent. Bring it back on-topic.