1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

JohnEpler wrote...

if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I think that's wrong.  I don't think you should ever do that.

The player should pick up on the details that suit his character, not the details you guys think are important.  Your cinematics make it harder for the player to stay in-character during cutscenes, because things like depth of field effects and even lens flare demonstrate that he is separated from the action by a virtual camera.

[Dlokir]

error

Modifié par Dlokir, 04 mars 2011 - 08:04 .

[Grunk]

I'm happy with how DA2 looks to be shaping up. If you aren't, that sucks, and I empathize with that.

I don't really wanna poo-poo people's preferences and all that. I think DA2 is an RPG and expect it'll be good. I think ME2 was as well, and so on. I have a hard time nailing RPG down to the tropes because in a lot of ways, the tropes of an RPG are more fluid than other genres, which I see as a strength. For example, the fighting games have the trope of competition; it's not a fighting game if you're not in direct fisticuffs-opposition to another entity (well, there's zoning and stuff, but still, you're trying to take out the other person). That's a lot less flexible than item collection, or character progression, and so on.

I have my own take on what the core of an RPG is, but I really just don't feel like going on about it. The short version is that I think that RPGs reach for the same kind of suspension of disbelief that mainstream fiction novels reach for, and some people feel that the gameplay changes in DA2 are stopping them from feeling as if they can insert themselves in the world as well, or simply dislike the gameplay changes from a stark mechanical standpoint ("Wtf, where's my overhead camera?"). To the former, I like to consider myself as taking on the persona of the character in the game, rather than inserting my persona: perhaps that will help with your enjoyment of the game? You step into the shoes of Hawke more completely than in something like Radiant Historia, in which you merely control the main character, but not so much so that the character must be a blank slate. I find it to be a very happy compromise; I like the characters in RPGs to have personality, but I also like to be able to insert some of myself into the game. For those that dislike things from a mechanical perspective, I can only reiterate that it sucks, and I'd advise you to try renting the game to get a more up-to-date and full picture of the game before dismissing it out of hand. There are games I expected to loathe that turned out great (like Radiant Historia) and games I so desperately wanted to love despite my hatred (Final Fantasy X). Try and rent it or something, give it a few hours, and if you dislike it, you're only out a bit of time and a few bucks. If you do, you can either buy it or play through the rental :-).

Anyway, lately, the only misstep I think Bioware has made was taking ragdolling out of ME2. That and I'd like another area that felt like the Citadel to run around in. I want the first because, while I was incredibly delighted at the addition of hit zones on enemies (or whatever you call it; headshots did more damage, etc), the thing that made me most happy in ME1 was blowing some fool away with my shotgun and watching them backflip across the room. Ragdoll effects just truly delight me, and I'd like them back. I like the second because it just felt cool going into the bar and seeing the nicer areas and seedier areas of the Citadel. I just like seeing that big city environment; another thing I look forward to in DA2.

This is also coming from a person that truly hated Baldur's Gate. I liked Icewind Dale well enough, but something about Baldur's Gate infuriated me; I did enjoy the Kensai class, though.

[cephasjames]

Firky wrote...

Nah. I'm as old school as it gets, but they're just basing this on the demo.

This. It amazes me how many people, here and eslewhere, make sweeping statements about the whole game based off of the demo.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I think that's wrong.  I don't think you should ever do that.

The player should pick up on the details that suit his character, not the details you guys think are important.  Your cinematics make it harder for the player to stay in-character during cutscenes, because things like depth of field effects and even lens flare demonstrate that he is separated from the action by a virtual camera.

and i dont think its worng. there style can convey things more effectively than simply writing it out. and it looks better as well. if you want the kind of immersion that you are asking for go to pen and paper rpgs.

[Captain_Obvious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I think that's wrong.  I don't think you should ever do that.

The player should pick up on the details that suit his character, not the details you guys think are important.  Your cinematics make it harder for the player to stay in-character during cutscenes, because things like depth of field effects and even lens flare demonstrate that he is separated from the action by a virtual camera.

No offense Sylvius, but why do you even play video games if you need this much control over your character?  I know people who won't play any RPG that's not pen and paper, and that's fine because that's how they like to play.  How do you expect Bioware to make a story without determining what's important to the story?  

[AtreiyaN7]

What I gather from reading this is that A) the author only played the demo and is basing his opinion on criticisms in reviews. While I'm sure that (given multiple reviews) the criticism of the level design is fair, it sounds like he hasn't actually played the whole game. The whole pause & play/button-mashing argument also seems a bit silly.

[F4d3s]

Captain Iglo wrote...

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.

you're probably right, and im sure EA/Bio considered this and at the end, they made the best business decisions. Whether or not it pleases some, none or all remains to be seen.

[mindbody]

cephasjames wrote...

Firky wrote...

Nah. I'm as old school as it gets, but they're just basing this on the demo.

This. It amazes me how many people, here and eslewhere, make sweeping statements about the whole game based off of the demo.

I don't defend jumping to extreme conclusions, but 1) The demo is all we have at this point (unless you're spoiling urself or a pirate) and 2) a demo is meant to be an example of what to expect, by definition.  People are supposed to judge the game by the demo. 
I personally think the final product will be improved, but that begs the question, why release a demo which isn't indicative of the final product? And did Bioware do itself any favors by doing so?

[Tsuga C]

Firky wrote...

Nah. I'm as old school as it gets, but they're just basing this on the demo.

A demo should be properly representative of the greater product, otherwise it's a poorly made demo.  After all, the purpose of a demo is to allow the consumer to decide whether or not the game is worth paying for.  Whether you like or dislike a demo, your experience should mirror your impressions of the game itself, otherwise it's failed in its mission.

[mindbody]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I think that's wrong.  I don't think you should ever do that.

The player should pick up on the details that suit his character, not the details you guys think are important.  Your cinematics make it harder for the player to stay in-character during cutscenes, because things like depth of field effects and even lens flare demonstrate that he is separated from the action by a virtual camera.

No offense Sylvius, but why do you even play video games if you need this much control over your character?  I know people who won't play any RPG that's not pen and paper, and that's fine because that's how they like to play.  How do you expect Bioware to make a story without determining what's important to the story?  

He expects to make the story himself. He only wants Bioware to make events. Encounters, as it were.

[Elsariel]

mindbody wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I think that's wrong.  I don't think you should ever do that.

The player should pick up on the details that suit his character, not the details you guys think are important.  Your cinematics make it harder for the player to stay in-character during cutscenes, because things like depth of field effects and even lens flare demonstrate that he is separated from the action by a virtual camera.

No offense Sylvius, but why do you even play video games if you need this much control over your character?  I know people who won't play any RPG that's not pen and paper, and that's fine because that's how they like to play.  How do you expect Bioware to make a story without determining what's important to the story?  

He expects to make the story himself. He only wants Bioware to make events. Encounters, as it were.

Erm... well, that sounds like fun but shouldn't that be made for a different franchise, then?  I don't see how a game like that would be a good fit for Dragon Age.

[mindbody]

Elsariel wrote...

mindbody wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

if we feel something needs emphasis, we'll do some camera trickery, animation timing, character movement, that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I think that's wrong.  I don't think you should ever do that.

The player should pick up on the details that suit his character, not the details you guys think are important.  Your cinematics make it harder for the player to stay in-character during cutscenes, because things like depth of field effects and even lens flare demonstrate that he is separated from the action by a virtual camera.

No offense Sylvius, but why do you even play video games if you need this much control over your character?  I know people who won't play any RPG that's not pen and paper, and that's fine because that's how they like to play.  How do you expect Bioware to make a story without determining what's important to the story?  

He expects to make the story himself. He only wants Bioware to make events. Encounters, as it were.

Erm... well, that sounds like fun but shouldn't that be made for a different franchise, then?  I don't see how a game like that would be a good fit for Dragon Age.

Hehe. You know there is a Dragon Age tabletop RPG, right?

[Sabresandiego]

out with the old, in with the new. classic RPG sucked except for the 5% who want to spend endless hours doing boring stuff.

[Dlokir]

Yeah it's a quite poor article just following a current wave of some 'hardcore" players that looked at the demo like if it was the full game.

The first points I'd answer to all this "mass of hardcore players", where they was for Drakensang and Drakensang River of Time? This series recently died because of a lack of sell.

So it's nice to whine and complain but there isn't so many hardcore players when it's about supporting. I don't remember even Dragon Knight Saga which is quite hardcore (but with no party) generated such waves of positive support.

I do agree there's a cumulation of bad clues coming from DA2 demo. These are only clues and not much is sure for the full game. But I quote it's the last modern Western RPG series still using party. But I suppose those hardcore players will explain that shooting fights in a game like FNV are more tactical and more hardcore. <_<

[Sylvius the Mad]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

and i dont think its worng. there style can convey things more effectively than simply writing it out.

I'm not saying there should be text.  How did you get that?

In a cutscene, if my character's attention is focussed on one character because he thinks that character is the important actor in that moment, I don't want the game's camera to tell me I'm wrong.

That's meta-game information, and it's distracting.

Elsariel wrote...

Erm... well, that sounds like fun but shouldn't that be made for a different franchise, then?  I don't see how a game like that would be a good fit for Dragon Age.

Why not?  DAO did a pretty good job of it, actually.  All I'd drop are those cutscenes that show events the Warden isn't actually witnessing, and I'd remove the depth of field and lens-flare effects from the conversations and remaining cutscenes.

The game hardly needs to be changed at all.

Captain_Obvious wrote...

No offense Sylvius, but why do you even play video games if you need this much control over your character?

CRPGs don't require other people.  Tabletop games do.

With nearly everything I enjoy, I enjoy it more when I'm alone.

[mindbody]

Sabresandiego wrote...

out with the old, in with the new. classic RPG sucked except for the 5% who want to spend endless hours doing boring stuff.

I think you haven't been exposed to good role-playing.  It shouldn't be boring at all... The idea is, it becomes a first person experience instead of an avatar grind.... It is personal for the character.  Therefore when the character risks something, you risk it, too.

[Lotion Soronarr]

elektrego wrote...

what you call decline, I call evolution! :ph34r:oh, well...

Evolution doesn't favor "better", but simply those that breed more. Evolution can produce horrible and stupid things.
Keep that in mind.

[halO bendeR]

This 'editorial' may have actually carried some weight if it was written by someone who played the full game instead of just the demo. There's a reason sites like IGN or Gamespot wouldn't run a piece like this; They require their reviewers to become 'experts' on a game before they review it.

[Vohnn]

This article made me lol from the circular logic about pause, to saying DA:O graphics were better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Evolution doesn't favor "better", but simply those that breed more. Evolution can produce horrible and stupid things.

Idiocracy really is a terrific film.

[Merced652]

halO bendeR wrote...

This 'editorial' may have actually carried some weight if it was written by someone who played the full game instead of just the demo. There's a reason sites like IGN or Gamespot wouldn't run a piece like this; They require their reviewers to become 'experts' on a game before they review it.

And IGN & Gamespot live off those same game's advertisements. :innocent:

[JrayM16]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

elektrego wrote...

what you call decline, I call evolution! :ph34r:oh, well...

Evolution doesn't favor "better", but simply those that breed more. Evolution can produce horrible and stupid things.
Keep that in mind.

Well, sort of.  Evolution favors those that breed more, but usually those that breed more do so as a result of being well-adapted to their environment.  Being well-adapted to one's environment, while it doesn't equal good, is usally good. 

But that's really besides the point.  And as Sylvius pointed out above, Idiocracy is a great film.

[mindbody]

Merced652 wrote...

halO bendeR wrote...

This 'editorial' may have actually carried some weight if it was written by someone who played the full game instead of just the demo. There's a reason sites like IGN or Gamespot wouldn't run a piece like this; They require their reviewers to become 'experts' on a game before they review it.

And IGN & Gamespot live off those same game's advertisements. :innocent:

That doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[Merced652]

mindbody wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

halO bendeR wrote...

This 'editorial' may have actually carried some weight if it was written by someone who played the full game instead of just the demo. There's a reason sites like IGN or Gamespot wouldn't run a piece like this; They require their reviewers to become 'experts' on a game before they review it.

And IGN & Gamespot live off those same game's advertisements. :innocent:

That doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I seem to recall people saying the same thing about global warming and the burning of fossil fuels.