HonourBorn wrote...
play on a higher difficulty than, i set the difficulty higher in the demo and i wasnt able to win the second fight against the troll without pausing to issue commands. That wasn't so hard to figure out was it? these threads are pathetic.
The stuff on capitalism is, IMO, also mistaken, but it didn't bother me as much as the science (and it isn't something I've studied in any great capacity) so I didn't see why I should comment on that. I didn't want to derail the thread, just make sure that if anyone was reading it, they were not misled on outright objective fact.
AlanC9 wrote...
Actually, that capitalism point didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. How do you account for innovation?
I'd say it's a bad thing based on my experiences in previous games (I generally prefer games with open spaces rather than narrow paths - it's one of the reasons I ultimately preferred ME to ME2, for example), but whether it works in DA2 remains to be seen.moilami wrote...
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
If true, is that a good or bad thing?
Jitter wrote...
Yes anyone shold be able to play whatever role they want.
So why did they force the players to be human . And make all of the classes the same in effect , and differ only in attack animation?
Modifié par Aidunno, 06 mars 2011 - 08:33 .
ibortolis wrote...
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.
Aidunno wrote...
Jitter wrote...
Yes anyone shold be able to play whatever role they want.
So why did they force the players to be human . And make all of the classes the same in effect , and differ only in attack animation?
How many PnP roleplaying games have you played where the GM/DM actually limited what players could play for the sake of the setting and story. I know I've played quite a few. Imagine the storyline of having to travel and meeting elves who distrust the party as they are all human. At least a couple of sessions could involve earning their trust. This would potentially be destroyed if there was an elf in the party already. Does that mean we were not playing an RPG ?
Modifié par moilami, 06 mars 2011 - 08:35 .
Actua wrote...
I've been playing BioWare RPGs for many years now--as most of us likely have. And I do it for four things:
1. Unique, subtle, and well-developed characters
2. Player choice with player consequence
3. In-depth character customization
4. Wonderfully realized worlds
So long as those four things remain intact, they could make a goddamn Cooking Mama game for all I care.
Lusitanum wrote...
ibortolis wrote...
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.
Oh, so you mean it's just like Dragon Age: Origins? The game that already had a boring, repetitive and incredibly shallow fighting system, and where raising its difficulty level just made fights even longer without actually making them the least bit challenging?
Granted, I'm not a big fan of the "hamsters-on-caffeine" style of animations and it looks like DA2 will continue on the route of its predecessor of not actually being the least bit tactical, but if it will at least actually require some kind of input on my part, then maybe I won't keep falling asleep while I pay it.
Aidunno wrote...
How many PnP roleplaying games have you played where the GM/DM actually limited what players could play for the sake of the setting and story. I know I've played quite a few. Imagine the storyline of having to travel and meeting elves who distrust the party as they are all human. At least a couple of sessions could involve earning their trust. This would potentially be destroyed if there was an elf in the party already. Does that mean we were not playing a RPG ?
While I'll agree that DAO didn't offer much in the way of tactical challenge, I would argue that the reasons for this were twofold.Lusitanum wrote...
Oh, so you mean it's just like Dragon Age: Origins? The game that already had a boring, repetitive and incredibly shallow fighting system, and where raising its difficulty level just made fights even longer without actually making them the least bit challenging?
Granted, I'm not a big fan of the "hamsters-on-caffeine" style of animations and it looks like DA2 will continue on the route of its predecessor of not actually being the least bit tactical, but if it will at least actually require some kind of input on my part, then maybe I won't keep falling asleep while I pay it.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 mars 2011 - 09:02 .
SaviorPilate wrote...
I think that what you people don't get is that games aren't just products. For anyone who has been a computer gamer *before* a console one, who has been interested and involved in the creation of the games industry itself, it was more than just about the products. It was about rebuilding a shattered, financially ruined system into something great. And then, it became hugely successful, and greedy people took over all of the companies that mattered, and turned them into faceless pieces of a corporation.
SaviorPilate wrote...
What's so disappointing is that none of you people seem to know anything about game history. Or RPG history. Or even basic spelling and grammar, for that matter.
Anyone who has roots in the history of RPG games knows how important Bioware used to be as a social movement. It wasn't just that Baldur's Gate was a great game, it was that there was a company making quality products for us. What Bioware represented was an indie movement writ large, supporting all of its die-hard fans as it was supported by them (us).
And now, Bioware is just another faceless piece of EA. It's all bull****, as far as I'm concerned.
The company that helped pioneer CRPGs is dead, and has been for years. And nobody knows or cares about that, because they are all just the stupid consumers that made it happen in the first place. It's the dumbed-down interests of the mass gamer crowd that paved the way for games like DA:O and ME.
And I like these games. I'm currently playing both DA:O and ME1 for the first time, as I never actually played them when they came out, because, as a consumer, I resented the fact that such a great company was destroyed by money and consumerism. Read anything about game industry history before you say that the people nay-saying this new game are just wrong. It isn't just that it's a dumbed-down action/rpg. It's that a company that pioneered the way for all of us was corrupted by the same mainstream stupidity that destroyed Black Isle Studios, and Looking Glass Studios, and Origin Systems, and just about every other great game studio that made amazing games throughout the years.
I think that what you people don't get is that games aren't just products. For anyone who has been a computer gamer *before* a console one, who has been interested and involved in the creation of the games industry itself, it was more than just about the products. It was about rebuilding a shattered, financially ruined system into something great. And then, it became hugely successful, and greedy people took over all of the companies that mattered, and turned them into faceless pieces of a corporation.
I don't believe that any of you understand that, though, because you aren't smart enough to see the larger picture like that. The games industry as I knew it growing up has been destroyed by the emotionless pursuit of money and market share, and consumer base.
moilami wrote...
That would be patents and trademarks.
Many wont understand that how trademarks account for innovation so I have to explain it. Apple have status of being innovative and as a result many who want to show they are "creative" buy Apple crap.
If you mean Origin Systems, I agree with you.SaviorPilate wrote...
The company that helped pioneer CRPGs is dead, and has been for years.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 mars 2011 - 09:10 .
SaviorPilate wrote...
Anyone who has roots in the history of RPG games knows how important Bioware used to be as a social movement. It wasn't just that Baldur's Gate was a great game, it was that there was a company making quality products for us. What Bioware represented was an indie movement writ large, supporting all of its die-hard fans as it was supported by them (us).
I think that what you people don't get is that games aren't just products. For anyone who has been a computer gamer *before* a console one, who has been interested and involved in the creation of the games industry itself, it was more than just about the products. It was about rebuilding a shattered, financially ruined system into something great. And then, it became hugely successful, and greedy people took over all of the companies that mattered, and turned them into faceless pieces of a corporation.
I don't believe that any of you understand that, though, because you aren't smart enough to see the larger picture like that. The games industry as I knew it growing up has been destroyed by the emotionless pursuit of money and market share, and consumer base.
moilami wrote...
Ah, well mate ye know the devs has to grow up at some point and say "lets make some big money now while we can". Or lets say they are still idealistical and pragmatical and just chose to do games to make the largest amount of people happy. You don't have to look at the bell curve to see how the games will be by then though.
BobSmith101 wrote...
There are two reasons to change.
1. The user base no longer supports the cost of the type of games you make.
2. You see someone else making more money and you want a piece of it.
I really don't like the idea of games being designed around statistics. There is just something that feels very wrong about that.
But not necessarily why they do it. Having better information does tend to lead to better outcomes, but it can sometimes lead to worse outcomes when the data are misinterpreted. Or if the designers are working within a system of perverse incentives.In Exile wrote...
I'm not sure I see the problem. Before, games were designed based on intuitions about features. Developers had to ask themselves if consumers liked "X" or "Y" before going forward based only on personal conjecture, and hope for the best. Now, developers have more detailed statistics on what players did and coul ask themselves "based on what we saw, X or Y?". They still have to go foward blind and hope for the best, but they are reasonably closer to an idea of what the user base does.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But not necessarily why they do it. Having better information does tend to lead to better outcomes, but it can sometimes lead to worse outcomes when the data are misinterpreted. Or if the designers are working within a system of perverse incentives.
Retour en haut