1216 réponses à ce sujet

[F4d3s]

JohnEpler wrote...

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based on known game statistics (dialogue, game play length, etc) it seems like alot of 'meat and potatoes' has also been replaced by cinematics..

thanks for the info, so basically what you are saying that the fewer dialogue choices have been streamlined into cinematics? that sounds interesting. But overall, there are fewer words (spoken or otherwise) than DAO, the gameplay is shorter (according to the stats posted) and overall game file size is smaller (apples to apples, not including DLC, etc)?

Thanks again..

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.

thanks for your input..so traditional dialogue has been streamlined into cinematics? interesting. But what about game stats compared to DAO (words, spoken or not), gameplay length (based on what has been posted) and overall file size (apples to apples, not including DLC, etc)? Seems like DA2 is much 'smaller' and more linear overall?

Modifié par F4d3s, 04 mars 2011 - 06:36 .

[Zeroed55]

Instead the game only truly caters to the fast, button-mashing style.  

Stopped reading there.

It's obvious the journalist and I aren't playing the same game, because the PC version is hardly a 'fast, button-mashing' game.

Oh, and 'Mass Effect 2' being an action-RPG? You mean, -like in the original-? No crap?

This article is stupid.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexXIV wrote...

And making a reference to an ancient Bethesda game that most people have never heard of isn't really bright either.

Daggerfall is far from ancient.  The point there was that Daggerfall offered a feature that allowed action gameplay to be playable by non-action gamers, and no one has used the feature since (not even Bethesda - frankly, the closest they've come is FO3's VATS).

The age of the mechanic tells us nothing about its quality.  What matters is the mechanic itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Daidoji Tangen wrote...

1. Mass Effect has always been an action-RPG.

Only by some standards.  That ME had stat-driven aiming while ME2 did not is, for some, a significant difference.

[AkiKishi]

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?

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 mars 2011 - 06:37 .

[Merced652]

ArcanistLibram wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

True of PST and KOTOR, with hindsight. Not true of the others.

Easy way to test. You know I'll play Hawke in DA2, you know I would play TNO in PST. You know post twist I will be playing Revan in KOTOR. But you have no idea who my character in DA or BG would be.

It's you who is factually wrong here.

The Warden is the Warden and the Bhaalspawn is the Bhaalspawn. You have some control over the Warden with the Origins, but the Origins themselves are pre-set characters, and there's no player input at all over the character's background in Baldur's Gate.

You're wrong, the character as it relates to his personality, the way he says things, the way he thinks, etc are not actually spelled out for you in bg2 or any other bioware game outside of the new **** like ME1/2 and now DA2. VO'd protag removes any room for the player to decide who his character really is fundamentally. Which is fine i guess but if i wanted to read a book or watch a movie i would do those things instead. Also the articles analysis of the wheel as it relates to DA2 was spot on. Any iteration of the wheel with a morality or intent pigeon holes the player in to specific choices if they wish to retain any sense of immersion. Not that i expect anyone to be immersed at any point during gameplay anyway, but if they somehow do become immersed it would be broken immediately after choosing an intent which isn't representative of your previous choices. So basically you can RP Hawke ABC style, if you even bother to rp at all.

[cast_]

Tactical RPG games are still around...just not from Bioware. Atlus pumps out a ton of them. Persona series coming to mind and Disgaea series/spin offs. Bioware's strengths have always been the story and lately the cinematography, which lends itself better to an action game. They still make great games, they just aren't anything like Baldurs Gate 2 anymore, and that's fine.

[Blastback]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

In otherwords, Bioware cinematics are the epic roleplaying moments we love so darn much.  So more of them is a good thing.

[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.

[AkiKishi]

JohnEpler wrote...
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.

Thanks.

[Radwar]

Ziggeh wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Deciding that Dragon Age II is not a classic RPG based on a 30 minute demo is stupid. In the first 30 minutes of BGI, you get to walk around a single, tiny environment, find someone a book and fight rats with a single character.

Rats are critical elements of the rpg experience.

Heh, I remember when Neverwinter Nights was released, Bioware got all kinds of flak from gamers because rats weren't included. They included them later in a patch.

[F4d3s]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

thank you.

[Captain_Obvious]

Daidoji Tangen wrote...

I honestly don't care I beat 4 times all on Casual. I like the story and I really do not care since I play games for my personal enjoyment and not to show off to strangers or my friends (at least single player games). I put this because I could be wrong.

 

Nope, this is how I mostly play too.  It's a game, and once it becomes work, I don't play any more.  I already have a job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to come home and stress out about nightmare or insanity mode. 

[Solo80]

What the "This is just a natural evolution"-crowd both in this and the demo feedback thread seems to be missing is that we "haters" (a ludicrous concept, concidering the subject matter) fully understand and accept that Baldur's Gate II isn't coming back. The old-school, 2D, isometric, 200 hour RPG is probably too cost prohibitive and has a too narrow fanbase to make commercially successful today. This is not the issue.

The issue is that a mere 2 years ago, Bioware showed us that not only could they still make a game that elicited some of that old-school RPG feeling, they could make it commercially successful as well. Just 2 years ago, they made a stat-heavy, challenging, epic RPG  for a crowd long thought dead, and by golly, they even made money doing it. What us "haters" take issue with is that when the sequel to this game arrives, we would like it to bear some semblance to what we loved in the series in the first place. We wanted Dragon Age 2, not God of Dragon Age.

Now, some people are perfectly happy about a game, any game, in the Thedas-setting, and the concept of an action game within the same world is enough for them - that's fine. Just accept that those of us who actually expected Dragon Age 2 to be a natural extension (or a "sequel", even, instead of a tangent) to Dragon Age: Origins reserve the right to disagree with you. Loudly. We, or at least I, feel the direction Bioware has gone with DA 2 makes little to no sense, especially considering the sales numbers of DA:O, and it's made a lot of gamers disappointed - gamers who thought they saw a successful return of "Old" Bioware with Origins, at least within the limitations of the gaming world as it stands today.

Will Dragon Age 2 be commercially successful? Probably. But let's face it, so were the Spice Girls. The best selling games are the Sims expansion packs. Origins made us believe we could expect more from Bioware. I'm still hoping Dragon Age 2 won't prove us wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

That is all.

[HTTP 404]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Daidoji Tangen wrote...

I honestly don't care I beat 4 times all on Casual. I like the story and I really do not care since I play games for my personal enjoyment and not to show off to strangers or my friends (at least single player games). I put this because I could be wrong.

 

Nope, this is how I mostly play too.  It's a game, and once it becomes work, I don't play any more.  I already have a job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to come home and stress out about nightmare or insanity mode. 

this exactly!

[the_one_54321]

For some people a game isn't fun if it isn't very challenging. And really, everyone expects challenge in a game. It's just that some expect more than others.

[Mezinger]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Mezinger wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Mezinger wrote...

While I agree with the general sentiment of the article I don't agree with this:

"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."

1 reason is that I still used pause and play during the demo, bringing up the skills wheel for potions, and healing spells primarily, as well as party target selection.

2nd reason is the demo on consoles didn't have auto-attack enabled the retail version does should make a big difference.

3rd they've landed 3 attacks on you while you do one...? The game is paused so that doesn't seem to make any sense.

I love the skill wheel if they took it out altogether that would be a huge loss.

My guess on the 3rd point is the act of pausing and unpausing takes player time meanwhile the computer is still doing things.  I didn't really notice this, so it may be a console thing.  So wtihout auto-attack you stop to pause, and you lose a small bit of time in the fight menawhile the computer is still pounding on you. 

That could be. I played on the PS3 and didn't notice this as much as the article author is making it out to be... I think it's probably an exaggeration. However, I did feel like I was sorely missing the auto-attack toggle. 

What he's basically saying is this.

Hit the pause key, as you are doing that because of the speed the enemy got in an attack, click for your action, unpause then by the time you reposistion you have been attacked again. If you view some PC combat videos you can actually see it in action. Where as in DA you had about 6 seconds between attacks, now it's more like 1 second.

I've watched PC combat video's that are around 6 minutes of combat and 4 minutes of pausing, or maybe it's 2 to 8 anyway they pause an awful lot.

Ahh, okay, I can see that perhaps being the case for a certain type of game play style on the PC...  I think it's less of an issue on the console due to the classic lack of the zoomed out isometric view... so by default you're less inclined to do a pause and play, positioning heavy game play approach... but if that's the way your used to playing on the PC, and they nerf the isometric view, making it harder to see the whole battlefield, plus speed everything up, I can see how that would be.... awful for that type of player. 

[Cadaveth]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Daidoji Tangen wrote...

I honestly don't care I beat 4 times all on Casual. I like the story and I really do not care since I play games for my personal enjoyment and not to show off to strangers or my friends (at least single player games). I put this because I could be wrong.

 

Nope, this is how I mostly play too.  It's a game, and once it becomes work, I don't play any more.  I already have a job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to come home and stress out about nightmare or insanity mode. 

People don't beat games on the highest difficulty just because they're able to brag to some strangers on forums about it... Sounds a bit sad if they actually do that. I just get more out of the game if I can't just breeze through it. I recommend giving higher difficulties a chance since they're not THAT hard. You just have to think a bit in advance. But each to his own.

[Captain_Obvious]

the_one_54321 wrote...

For some people a game isn't fun if it isn't very challenging. And really, everyone expects challenge in a game. It's just that some expect more than others.

Totally agreed, and my challenge bar is VERY low.  Reality is challenging enough. 

[AkiKishi]

Mezinger wrote...

Ahh, okay, I can see that perhaps being the case for a certain type of game play style on the PC...  I think it's less of an issue on the console due to the classic lack of the zoomed out isometric view... so by default you're less inclined to do a pause and play, positioning heavy game play approach... but if that's the way your used to playing on the PC, and they nerf the isometric view, making it harder to see the whole battlefield, plus speed everything up, I can see how that would be.... awful for that type of player. 

That would be my conclusion too. I did the whole demo in real time without any problems. The PS3 controls were very intuative. Took a few minutes to adapt to the new speed but fine otherwise.

I've played the PC version but because I'm not a mouse/keyboard player anymore It's not really a level playing field because my skill on the two systems is poles appart.

[Elsariel]

Cadaveth wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Daidoji Tangen wrote...

I honestly don't care I beat 4 times all on Casual. I like the story and I really do not care since I play games for my personal enjoyment and not to show off to strangers or my friends (at least single player games). I put this because I could be wrong.

 

Nope, this is how I mostly play too.  It's a game, and once it becomes work, I don't play any more.  I already have a job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to come home and stress out about nightmare or insanity mode. 

People don't beat games on the highest difficulty just because they're able to brag to some strangers on forums about it... Sounds a bit sad if they actually do that. I just get more out of the game if I can't just breeze through it. I recommend giving higher difficulties a chance since they're not THAT hard. You just have to think a bit in advance. But each to his own.

I don't mind that for boss battles, but I don't want EVERY battle to be think-heavy.  It would annoy the heck out of me. 

[Merced652]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

For some people a game isn't fun if it isn't very challenging. And really, everyone expects challenge in a game. It's just that some expect more than others.

Totally agreed, and my challenge bar is VERY low.  Reality is challenging enough. 

Then what is more stimulating about games then movies, books, or sitcoms? I'm genuinely interested to know.

[F4d3s]

Cadaveth wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Daidoji Tangen wrote...

I honestly don't care I beat 4 times all on Casual. I like the story and I really do not care since I play games for my personal enjoyment and not to show off to strangers or my friends (at least single player games). I put this because I could be wrong.

 

Nope, this is how I mostly play too.  It's a game, and once it becomes work, I don't play any more.  I already have a job, and I'll be damned if I'm going to come home and stress out about nightmare or insanity mode. 

People don't beat games on the highest difficulty just because they're able to brag to some strangers on forums about it... Sounds a bit sad if they actually do that. I just get more out of the game if I can't just breeze through it. I recommend giving higher difficulties a chance since they're not THAT hard. You just have to think a bit in advance. But each to his own.

umm yeah..if i played higher difficulties to come brag on forums, id say i have a problem lol

I like to get challenged and have to think things thru instead of just pressing buttons, etc. Reminds me a bit of my WOW days, we'd spend days sometimes trying to take down a boss and I personally loved the challenge and tactical aspects.

[Almahnsor]

In DA2 the cool downs are so short that you don't have to make choices and to think, it's just button mashing. If you want to play "tactically" you have to pause the game every second if you don't want to miss your timings, which is quite unplayable in my book (unless you want to play 1 minute for 10 minutes of pause like the guy who tries to play his rogue strategically in someones signature). DAO had a good balance between tactics and action without affecting the game flow. I suppose most people will like the new style (action RPGs have a larger fan base). However people expecting a classic tactical RPG like BG or DAO will be disappointed.

[T-Rock1209]

Jeeeeeezeeee. I'm so sick of people's "ZOMG BUTTON MASH!" ranting. Aren't classic RPG's typically played on PC? Isn't there an auto-attack feature? Doesn't that mean the game plays almost exactly like DA:O? Do keyboards even have buttons to mash? Some people just get a e-chub over the sound of their own keyboard strokes.