1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain_Obvious]

Merced652 wrote...

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.

That's the thing though, really good games are almost like interactive movies, Heavy Rain being the one that I consider exactly that.  I enjoy challenge in some games, but I wasn't born a platformer so I have to work to be good at games.  I never even beat the first boss in Devil May Cry, and I can't tell you how many hours I tried.  A game has to be over-the-top fantastic for me to even try a harder difficulty these days.  I beat ME1 on hardcore, but when I tried insanity it was flat-out boring because all I was doing was spamming powers (I'm thinking of the thorian creepers on Feros).  It was taking too long, it was not fun, it was shoot, shoot, shoot, throw, shoot, shoot, throw, etc.  It just takes me a long time with a game before I need to change the diffuculty to make it interesting.  With Bioware's games in particular, there is a lot to do and a few playthroughs before I consider the game finished. 

[VanDraegon]

We can complain and cry all we want about the changes we dont like or making the game too action based and less "classic rpg" but in the end, if we are honest with ourselves we cannot expect Bioware to make a game to suit a smaller percentage of gamers. Not when we have to consider the development costs of modern games and the graphics and features we have come to expect.

I know a lot of us are will to sacrifice a lot of those features for the elements of a classic rpg but with all the costs that go into making a game only to hopefully break even or maybe make a slight profit if lucky.

Blame lays with the realities of the modern gaming business and market.

Modifié par VanDraegon, 04 mars 2011 - 07:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Whereas, I think a good game is a challenging mental puzzle. The payoff for me is the roleplaying itself - the implementation of a detailed personality in the game world to see what it will do.

For me, a good CRPG is never finished, as there are always new personalities I can try.

Back to the review's description of combat, I do think "button-masher" is an inaccurate desciption, but I also find - based on the demo - that DA2's combat is too fast. By the time I can do anything, everyone is already dead. It's not the speed of the abilities that is the problem, necessarily, but the length of the combat encounter overall. I want to fight for more than 10 seconds at a time.

[Elsariel]

Merced652 wrote...

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.

Games are interactive.  I get to participate instead of sit back and watch.  My level of participation may vary, but I'm still participating.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

VanDraegon wrote...

We can complain and cry all we want about the changes we dont like or making the game too action based and less "classic rpg" but in the end, if we are honest with ourselves we cannot expect Bioware to make a game to suit a smaller percentage of gamers. Not when we have to consider the development costs of modern games and the graphics and features we have come to expect.

Modern games are too expensive to produce.  I think many of these modern features should be tossed aside, because they add nothing to the game.

All these cinematics?  Waste of time.  Super-detailed 3D models?  Waste of time.  Voice-acting?  Waste of time.

If we discard those things, then the games get a lot cheaper to make, and then they can afford to make a niche product.

[F4d3s]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Whereas, I think a good game is a challenging mental puzzle. The payoff for me is the roleplaying itself - the implementation of a detailed personality in the game world to see what it will do.

For me, a good CRPG is never finished, as there are always new personalities I can try.

Back to the review's description of combat, I do think "button-masher" is an inaccurate desciption, but I also find - based on the demo - that DA2's combat is too fast. By the time I can do anything, everyone is already dead. It's not the speed of the abilities that is the problem, necessarily, but the length of the combat encounter overall. I want to fight for more than 10 seconds at a time.

i got the gib mod which allows you to play on hard the the fights did take a little longer, but not that much. So i think hard/nightmare is what I'll play..

[mindbody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

We can complain and cry all we want about the changes we dont like or making the game too action based and less "classic rpg" but in the end, if we are honest with ourselves we cannot expect Bioware to make a game to suit a smaller percentage of gamers. Not when we have to consider the development costs of modern games and the graphics and features we have come to expect.

Modern games are too expensive to produce.  I think many of these modern features should be tossed aside, because they add nothing to the game.

All these cinematics?  Waste of time.  Super-detailed 3D models?  Waste of time.  Voice-acting?  Waste of time.

If we discard those things, then the games get a lot cheaper to make, and then they can afford to make a niche product.

Was DA:O a niche market game? I'm not saying it was the perfect RPG, but many "complainers" would simply rather have a game that plays more like Origins. There's no need to discard all those things.  Companies can make money and make RPGs. Origins proved that.

[DragonShepard138]

Dragon Age has done their RPG format almost perfectly, the only thing missing from the "true RPG" that this guy is talking about is more open world exploration. Although larger environments and freedom would be nice, but then again this game isn't trying to copy the Elder Scrolls. Dragon Age is a perfect example of an RPG, you have a great story that gives choices that affect your character, your mates, and in a couple instances the entire world.

The gameplay for Dragon Age is a derivative of the combat style from games like Baldurs Gate or Champions of Norrath and made it more fun, complex and team based. A lot of developers when making RPGs choose the action RPG format because to a lot of players it is more exciting to feel like you have complete control over the character and it may seem easier to certain players. In my opinion the main reason a lot of the earlier/classic RPGs were turn based RPGs was due to the limited technology and memory for cartridges and disks at the time, not because turn based was the preferred format. At the current time with a lot better advancements in technology some developers still like this format so they stick to it and its a great format too. While other games try to combine action elements to their turn based format (FF13 really comes to mind here).

As for the button mashing, any game can be a button masher if you're playing on easy or if its just how you decide to play it. A lot of turn based RPGs can even be button mashers during random encounters and if you are levelled high enough. Therefore his argument here is invalid. Oblivion's main quest is one of the easiest games I've ever played. It could be beaten solely by button mashing and barely any blocking provided you have some sort of armor on and not fighting with your fists.

In conclusion, my opinion is that the person who wrote this article is just making a poor attempt at sounding intelligent while bashing Dragon Age. Whether or not he enjoys the game and is just critical, who knows but his argument has flaws and I've only read the summary of it from the first post so I wont waste my time further by reading it in its entirety.

Modifié par DragonShepard138, 04 mars 2011 - 07:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't want the fights to be especially difficult (I played on Hard in DAO and that was perfect), but I want to be able to take my time during them. I have a thoughtful approach to RPG combat. I routinely open encounters with several seconds of positioning rather than fighting. I'll circle around enemies to attack them from an unexpected direction (or multiple directions). I'll lay traps. I'll scout ahead to see if I need to worry about adds.

Fights, the way I fight them, take forever, and I've seen no indication that DA2 fights can.

[Veracruz]

Solo80 wrote...
...
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.
...

I can understand perfectly the feeling of "give more of the same". Especially when "the same" was really good.

You can freely disagree about the direction of Dragon Age, Star Wars or anything else. Hopefully in a civil way that presents you as someone worth of respect (refering to the "loudly" part). In any case, changes started long tie ago and not just in Bioware. Past generations aren't like the current ones, which aren't like the future ones. Mundanization of videogames is just but one of the reasons of why todays gaming is how it is. Good games are/will still be made (much more trash too) but they aren't/won't be as they used to be.

So feel free to disagree with the product, it's fine and good. But also remember to temper your expectations when a game is being developed. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Modifié par Veracruz, 04 mars 2011 - 07:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

mindbody wrote...

Companies can make money and make RPGs. Origins proved that.

Apparently they can't make enough money, though.  BioWare's been very open that they can't spend 6 years making one game anymore.

[Sylriel]

Jean-Funk Van Damme wrote...

Sylriel wrote...

I personally believe DA2 is a move in the right direction. It is true that many things have suffered from oversimplification, however, I merely consider them as growing pains as things improve for the better.

You mean "for the better" of making games faster, shorter, simplified and for getting the money before anyone reacts to the fact that it's mainstreamed and not as good as it could have been.

Actually, faster in regards to the over all pace of encounters is indeed one of the improvements I consider is for the better.  Realism has been brought up many times.  I personally believe that combatants standing around seemingly counting to 20 before taking another swing at their opponent is very far from realistic.

The simplification of certain things will not please everyone.  Not everything fits at first, but I do believe Bioware has implemented it well and will improve upon it in the future.

"Short" is subjective for me.  I can play a DA:O session in less then 20 hours and yet have a playthrough in over 80.

And finally, I wholly disagree with the assessment presented in previous discussions that Bioware is attempting to cheat their playerbase.  It's a topic that has been discussed many times over already and so I will not touch upon it.

[Merced652]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

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.

That's the thing though, really good games are almost like interactive movies, Heavy Rain

Subjective, and not even sure how that can lend you to the RPG Genre.

Not to be a complete ****, but Heavy Rain isn't an RPG. It has a good story, you can choose dialogue, but that isn't the only thing that makes an rpg. Theres no character development, no RP. I'm not very thrilled to see the RPG Genre become Heavy Rain, or that people wish for my preferred genre to become Heavy Rain. Call me entitled or something but i find wanting RPGs to be "interactive movies" in any capacity leading to a convergence from which the term RPG should not survive.

So queue the melodrama because such an event truly would be the death of RPGs as we know it.

Modifié par Merced652, 04 mars 2011 - 07:40 .

[mindbody]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Companies can make money and make RPGs. Origins proved that.

Apparently they can't make enough money, though.  BioWare's been very open that they can't spend 6 years making one game anymore.

But it wouldn't have taken 6 years! The time they spent making DA2 could easily have produced a game like Origins... Probably a longer game with more complex role-playing possibilities since there would have been no need for many of the changes.

[Neon_Kharma]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

I like that explanation of your 'cinematics'.  I'll have to remember it.

[Captain Iglo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Modern games are too expensive to produce.  I think many of these modern features should be tossed aside, because they add nothing to the game.

All these cinematics?  Waste of time.  Super-detailed 3D models?  Waste of time.  Voice-acting?  Waste of time.

If we discard those things, then the games get a lot cheaper to make, and then they can afford to make a niche product.

If I would be in Charge of EA I would create a 4th rather small section of Bioware that creates such games in the classical style which would be absolutely perfect for the Ipad/Iphone/Xbox Live/PSN/Handhelds market and could also come out on steam for example for the pc. 15-20$ dollar I would charge. Obviously not the size of a BG2...but in episodes that come out every 6 months.

Modifié par Captain Iglo, 04 mars 2011 - 07:50 .

[F4d3s]

mindbody wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Companies can make money and make RPGs. Origins proved that.

Apparently they can't make enough money, though.  BioWare's been very open that they can't spend 6 years making one game anymore.

But it wouldn't have taken 6 years! The time they spent making DA2 could easily have produced a game like Origins... Probably a longer game with more complex role-playing possibilities since there would have been no need for many of the changes.

yeah but when you have a giant like EA as your publisher, its more about volume and frequency of revenue streams, not necessarily quality and depth, just my opinion. Again, its a business, I would probably do the same. I think this is why you see some developpers shy away from large publishers.

In my consulting business, I deal with similar situations all the time and my clients always have an ongoing and sometimes agonizing debate between establishing niched customer loyalty vs mass production for broader appeal. There are pros and cons to each. For example, look at the dev times for the elder scrolls franchise, if quality and time are correlated, would the core gamers be willing to wait an extra 1-2 years?

[VanDraegon]

I certainly wish DA2 was like DA:O. However, I know that Bioware has to make decisions based on what they feel will return the most on their investment, while attempting to improve their product. I am not going to rag on them about it endlessly like some on these forums choose to.

Once the sales figures for DA2 are in i am sure that they will do a lot of comparing. We can hope that somewhere along the line they decide to take a few steps back towards the style of game that DA:O was. In the end though, i would rather have a DA2 rpg from Bioware than no Dragon Age game at all.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Neon_Kharma wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

I like that explanation of your 'cinematics'.  I'll have to remember it.

so a pictures worth 1000 words???? who knew????

[F4d3s]

VanDraegon wrote...

In the end though, i would rather have a DA2 rpg from Bioware than no Dragon Age game at all.

or maybe having to wait another 1-2 years for it to please everyone..and even then it wont.

[Captain_Obvious]

Merced652 wrote...
Subjective, and not even sure how that can lend you to the RPG Genre.

Not to be a complete ****, but Heavy Rain isn't an RPG. It has a good story, you can choose dialogue, but that isn't the only thing that makes an rpg. Theres no character development, no RP. I'm not very thrilled to see the RPG Genre become Heavy Rain, or that people wish for my preferred genre to become Heavy Rain. Call me entitled or something but i find wanting RPGs to be "interactive movies" in any capacity leading to a convergence from which the term RPG should not survive.

So queue the melodrama because such an event truly would be the death of RPGs as we know it.

I don't think I would call you entitled, just that you have expectations based on your experiences with RPGs.  I wouldn't say that I want RPGs to end up like Heavy Rain, just that one of the aspects that has made RPGs more enjoyable for me is the more theatrical aspects that are being included.  I think this was done very well in DA:O, ME1 and ME2.  I will be sad to see some of the changes (I love inventories and I am an item hoarder in games) but I won't let that take away from what can be a good game anyway.  I don't think RPGs are dead, or even on the way out.  DA:O was considered a turn back to classic RPG.  It won't be the last time we'll see that sort of thing. 

[CubbieBlue66]

I miss old school tactical RPGs like Shining Force 3. But nobody wants those games anymore...

So you know what I did?

I got over it and learned how to enjoy new games for what they are, instead of complaining about what they aren't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd happily wait.

[Captain Iglo]

F4d3s wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

In the end though, i would rather have a DA2 rpg from Bioware than no Dragon Age game at all.

or maybe having to wait another 1-2 years for it to please everyone..and even then it wont.

The problem in todays market with such things as "1-2 more years to polish the game" is that the number of sales would not change significally.

[mindbody]

F4d3s wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Companies can make money and make RPGs. Origins proved that.

Apparently they can't make enough money, though.  BioWare's been very open that they can't spend 6 years making one game anymore.

But it wouldn't have taken 6 years! The time they spent making DA2 could easily have produced a game like Origins... Probably a longer game with more complex role-playing possibilities since there would have been no need for many of the changes.

yeah but when you have a giant like EA as your publisher, its more about volume and frequency of revenue streams, not necessarily quality and depth, just my opinion. Again, its a business, I would probably do the same. I think this is why you see some developpers shy away from large publishers.

In my consulting business, I deal with similar situations all the time and my clients always have an ongoing and sometimes agonizing debate between establishing niched customer loyalty vs mass production for broader appeal. There are pros and cons to each. For example, look at the dev times for the elder scrolls franchise, if quality and time are correlated, would the core gamers be willing to wait an extra 1-2 years?

Bioware quite often disputes that there is a direct relationship between quality and time of development... As they've said, it depends entirely on the size of the team working on it.  And I believe you are mistaken about the role that EA plays in deciding what quality and depth are in Bioware games.  I believe it's more like Bioware is given goals and a budget, and left to do what they do best.  It's Laidlaw who decided to take DA2 in this direction
Lastly, I dispute that there was a niche market for Origins.  DA:O sold pretty well, from what I understand. Perhaps, as Sylvius says, not well enough for Bioware, especially considering the long dev cycle... And we have yet to see how DA2 will sell. But it's entirely conceivable that DA2 would sell better and have more mass appeal simply because it is the second incarnation of this IP... People already know about it and want to play it because of the first.