1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Graunt]

BobSmith101 wrote...

In the demo if you look at the backround in the distance, it just screams Mordor.
You can, but most of the time you get different just for the sake of being different. Tolkein based most of his world on various legends and myths. That's why its both familiar and yet different.
Even very different stuff like FFIX still has it's share of fantasy cliche.

Right, but Origins didn't just resemble it, it screamed it at every opportunity as though it was a virtue being so obvious. Not once during the demo did I actually think about LOTR -- I was too busy thinking how awkward the animations were, and how utterly goofy the exploding "Darkspawn" looked.

Difficulty for the sake of difficutly doesn't fix anything. Making
creatures hit twice as hard and having twice the health isn't meaningful
and it's not the same as having a random encounter somewhere that you
didn't expect, as i mentioned before

You were complaining about the "loss of tactics" as though the game won't have any and that you could just blindly "mash" your way through it.  As others have stated multiple times to those bemoaning the combat change, it's the same damn thing, only faster.  The most drastic change is the camera, which is bad.

Modifié par Graunt, 07 mars 2011 - 11:15 .

[AkiKishi]

Graunt wrote...
Right, but Origins didn't just resemble it, it screamed it at every opportunity as though it was a virtue being so obvious. Not once during the demo did I actually think about LOTR -- I was too busy thinking how awkward the animations were, and how utterly goofy the exploding "Darkspawn" looked.

That's not really a good thing either. I'd say it's better to "copy" LOTR than Power Rangers for example.

[moilami]

AlanC9 wrote...

What's the definition of action-RPG? Is there one?

Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely-defined sub-genre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements ofaction or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action that requires direct input from the player, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.

http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

[moilami]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

Have you seen the Hitler video ? Never thought I would ever agree with that twisted SOB.

Wow that video was done last summer. People knew a year ago how DA2 is going to be. Talk about need to play a demo much less the actual game!

[Bonkz]

In my post i pointed out that i understand how the game developers are taking that direction in their games nowadays. I wouldn't call it complaining, just stating facts and saying my opinion on the matter. It is also a fact that the game can be played without pausing. It's how it was made. Having faster animations isn't a problem. As for the camera, i agree with you.

[Graunt]

moilami wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What's the definition of action-RPG? Is there one?

Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely-defined sub-genre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements ofaction or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action that requires direct input from the player, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.

http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

I've yet to play an Action RPG that allows you to issue commands while the game is paused.  It's not real time, but it's also not turn based, it's somewhere in between.

Modifié par Graunt, 07 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[moilami]

Morroian wrote...

Bonkz wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Thats only a marketing catchphrase, you're ascribing too much importance to it. All conflict in DAO were resolved by combat if you're going to criticicise DA2 for focussing on it you're going to have to criticise DAO, indeed most BW games going back to kotor.
 

Well from what i've seen in all the videos and while playing the demo myself (i know that some features were not included) it seems like the only thing that changed the most and the whole game moved more towards that aspect, is combat. I'm not ascribing too much inportance, it is how it is.

I never said that DA:O was better. But at least there was a sense of tactical combat in it. Some fights could be tricky if you didn't pay attention. Even though the lvl scaling ruined it for me. 

DA2 has similar tactical combat just faster, you actually have to try and look past the speed. The demo was there to show the features of the game that had changed the most. I'm sure the rest of Bioware's usual strengths will be in the final game.

When I played last time DA the combat was very fast (in "nightmare"). I opened with fireball and mopped up. That was it.

Just because you now have fast gung-fu ninja animations does not mean the combat would actually be faster. I wait to see how it is in "nightmare" in DA2.

[AkiKishi]

[quote]moilami wrote...
[/quote]

Wow that video was done last summer. People knew a year ago how DA2 is going to be. Talk about need to play a demo much less the actual game!
[/quote]

Well the whole "needing to play" thing is just a dodge people use. If something demonstrates a feature that will not change, then you don't need to go beyond that. For example once they announced there was only Hawke as a character, you don't need to play the full game to confirm that.

[Morroian]

moilami wrote...

Morroian wrote...

DA2 has similar tactical combat just faster, you actually have to try and look past the speed. The demo was there to show the features of the game that had changed the most. I'm sure the rest of Bioware's usual strengths will be in the final game.

When I played last time DA the combat was very fast (in "nightmare"). I opened with fireball and mopped up. That was it.

Just because you now have fast gung-fu ninja animations does not mean the combat would actually be faster. I wait to see how it is in "nightmare" in DA2.

Thats sort of what I said I think. To some extent the faster combat is illusory. The tactical side is still there and looks to be the only way to play nightmare. 

[Yrkoon]

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

So I take it you can't remember when games used to be something other than a marketing tool, aimed at the lowest common denominator with a wallet.

You mean back before  they  felt the need to advertise games for the purposes of.... selling them? 

No, I *don't* remember that far back.  And neither do you, or anyone else still alive today.

I do remember being flooded with similar  marketing hype before BG2... more than a decade ago.  I remember  all the wacky marketing gimmicks they tossed at us before BG2 came out.  I remember having to pay 10 bucks more for the Special  Edition  of BG2.... which came with a BG2 T-shirt  (Oh Boy!),  and a pair of bonus merchants in-game that  gave us access to exclusive  typically, insanely overpowered  magic items to entice  munckin little kid gamers (read:  the lowest common Denominator) to buy the game and 'kick ass' with these  special overpowered Items.

I remember watching BG2 Trailers, with featured big EXPLOSIONS, and mages  casting big, colorful spells designed to wow the button-pushing, instant gratification crowd.

Don't you?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 mars 2011 - 11:47 .

[AkiKishi]

Morroian wrote...
Thats sort of what I said I think. To some extent the faster combat is illusory. The tactical side is still there and looks to be the only way to play nightmare. 

You mean click-pause-click-pause-click-pause ? 

Nightmare in DA was not that hard in real time as long as you programmed the team AI and made sure to give your mages the correct spells. Not sure how it was with default AI.
After playing ME2 NGP I found Insane to be more tedious than hard, thats something that often occurs with difficulties even going back to gold box and IE games.

Why they could not have just copied EA FIFA and had variable speeds (like the difference between Am and Pro). Seems like it would have been easier in the long run. Removing FF from anything other than nightmare though, can't see any justification for that.

[Aurgelmir]

Yrkoon wrote...

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

So I take it you can't remember when games used to be something other than a marketing tool, aimed at the lowest common denominator with a wallet.

You mean back before  they needed advertising? 

No, I *don't* remember that far back.  And neither do you, or anyone else still alive today.

What I mean: The game has been designed to be marketing fodder via cross game promotions, marketing contests, special items etc.

[Yrkoon]

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

So I take it you can't remember when games used to be something other than a marketing tool, aimed at the lowest common denominator with a wallet.

You mean back before  they needed advertising? 

No, I *don't* remember that far back.  And neither do you, or anyone else still alive today.

What I mean: The game has been designed to be marketing fodder via cross game promotions, marketing contests, special items etc.

That's *always* been the case.

It was the case before BG2 as well.  In fact, you wanna talk about "selling out"?    While they were developing Throne of Bhaal,    Bioware held a  contest  for message board fans to come up with the NAMES of the  NPCs that would appear in the game.

And the Collectors edition of BG2, which was 10 bucks more than the standard version, didn't feature a few special items, it featured 2 whole merchants selling entire inventories of balance-breaking special items.  And these items were *specifically* advertised as overpowered...  why?  so that the "lowest common denominator", as you call them... would buy the game

Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[Bonkz]

But they did provide a solid game that pleased almost everyone. A complete game. It wasnt "all" about the extra. I didn't have to pay extra to get minsc in my party. I am stating again  that -of course- game companies and their advertising moves on, i'm not completely against that. Things couldn't be the same then and now. I'm just stating the fact.

Modifié par Bonkz, 07 mars 2011 - 12:03 .

[moilami]

Yrkoon wrote...

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Aurgelmir wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

ceski wrote...

This video sums up how Dragon Age 2 represents everything wrong with the video game industry today.

A complete shame.

That video tells us exactly nothing....

So I take it you can't remember when games used to be something other than a marketing tool, aimed at the lowest common denominator with a wallet.

You mean back before  they needed advertising? 

No, I *don't* remember that far back.  And neither do you, or anyone else still alive today.

What I mean: The game has been designed to be marketing fodder via cross game promotions, marketing contests, special items etc.

That's *always* been the case.

It was the case before BG2 as well.  In fact, you wanna talk about "selling out"?    While they were developing Throne of Bhaal,    Bioware held a  contest  for message board fans to come up with the NAMES of the  NPCs that would appear in the game.

And the Collectors edition of BG2, which was 10 bucks more than the standard version, didn't feature a few special items, it featured 2 whole merchants selling entire inventories of balance-breaking special items.  And these items were *specifically* advertised as overpowered...  why?  so that the "lowest common denominator", as you call them... would buy the game

Wow I had no idea there is stuff like that in BG2. Or is that the Adventurer's Mart?

During the rise of comp gaming there was no Internet as it is today. There was gaming magazines and your local gaming shop. Advertisements were on the walls of the gaming shop. All kind of posters. Or piles of games on the floor. Or games hanging from the ceiling.

This new marketing and profiteering is not a surprise to see it happen. There are people whose job is to think how to make more money. They are not stupids. They will figure ways to make more money.

[Yrkoon]

Bonkz wrote...

But they did provide a solid game that pleased almost everyone.

  Oh I wouldn't go that far.     Back then,   RPG gamers were split into   2  very vocal crowds.  The BG crowd, and  Diablo crowd. 

Much of the BG crowd didn't want a damn thing changed.  They wanted  the  free roam, low level,  low intensity campaign that   they grew to love in BG1, while the Diablo crowd wanted  a darker, more actiony, more to the point gaming experience that they grew to love in Diablo.

Bioware tried to please both crowds' specific tastes, but ultimately failed in that specific endeavor.    Bg2 ended up being a 'compromise' for the 2 camps.   it was   a little bit of everything but not enough of  one or the other', which means   some members of both crowds were sufficiently turned  off.

But the bottom line is that  many MORE people,  (including new gamers not neccesarily members of either camp) loved  BG2 for what it was.  And that's why it was a success.  I see the exact same thing happening here with DA2.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 mars 2011 - 12:26 .

[Obsidian Gryphon]

I'll only know if the article is right, end of the year. For I do not plan to buy DA II so soon. By then, bugs, fixes, DLCs (& gripes ) should be out.

Modifié par Obsidian Gryphon, 07 mars 2011 - 12:25 .

[Graunt]

[quote]BobSmith101 wrote...
Nightmare in DA was not that hard in real time as long as you programmed the team AI and made sure to give your mages the correct spells.[/quote]

You aren't the first person to make this claim, but even with the tactics the AI was atrocious.  It wouldn't have been so bad if you could have actually specified many of the options, but you couldn't, and you also had to get really redundant, filling up multiple slots of the same character just so that action would "work" for multiple allies.  You say "not that hard", and while that may be true, it was still terrible if you were not controlling all but the most mundane actions.[/quote]

Modifié par Graunt, 07 mars 2011 - 12:30 .

[moilami]

Yrkoon wrote...

Bonkz wrote...

But they did provide a solid game that pleased almost everyone.

  Oh I wouldn't go that far.     Back then,   RPG gamers were split into   2  very vocal crowds.  The BG crowd, and  Diablo crowd. 

Much of the BG crowd didn't want a damn thing changed.  They wanted  the  free roam, low level,  low intensity campaign that   they grew to love in BG1, while the Diablo crowd wanted  a darker, more actiony, more to the point gaming experience that they grew to love in Diablo.

Bioware tried to please both crowds' specific tastes, but ultimately failed in that specific endeavor.    Bg2 ended up being a 'compromise' for the 2 camps.   it was   a little bit of everything but not enough of  one or the other', which means  bunches of people from  both crowds were adequately pissed off.

But the bottom line is that  many MORE people,  (including new gamers not neccesarily members of either camp) loved  BG2 for what it was.  And that's why it was a success.  I see the exact same thing happening here with DA2.

I saw Diablo in my friend's PS and noticed quicly it is dumbed down Nethack. Haven't ever played any Diablo a second. However after seeing screenies of Diablo 3 I think l have a plan to by the whole set and study them all.

I did not grow to like BG. I played and finished about 20 cRPGs before that (that does not include Ultimas, which I haven't actually ever played except was it VII 1/2 hours and maybe III for one day.)

BG did stuff right and I was in heaven right away. If you tried to go faceroll mobs in the beginning you just died. If you tried to faceroll the first assassin in Friendly Arm Inn you just died if you were not lucky.

So talk about immersion. You were s*t as you should be and you needed brains to survive. Why that has changed? Why you are OP and don't need brains anymore?

[moilami]

Obsidian Gryphon wrote...

I'll only know if the article is right, end of the year. For I do not plan to buy DA II so soon. By then, bugs, fixes, DLCs (& gripes ) should be out.

This is the best counter to profiteering as a consumer. Wait a year or two, get a game with all addons, final patch, and mods with fraction of the original price.

I bought DA2 in advance because I thought it could be nice to discuss it in forums while it is fresh.

Modifié par moilami, 07 mars 2011 - 12:35 .

[Rixxencaxx]

The funny thing is that they sold out their core audience for nothing...This game will not sell more than origins, they will fail to gain a wider audience.

[Yrkoon]

Both Diablos are absolutely dumbed down, mindless hack-n-slashes as far as RPGs go, But despite that, I absolutely loved them. They were simply fun as hell. Period. To me, those games are my "guilty pleasures"..... I'd never admit to my friends in real life that I enjoyed them... but, I did.

Rixxencaxx wrote...

The funny thing is that they sold out their core audience for nothing...This game will not sell more than origins, they will fail to gain a wider audience.

Well, whether Bioware 'sold out their core audience" and whether DA2 will outsell DA: O are two completely different claims.

Not gonna  bother to speculate on the former, but I'm willing to bet  my two front teeth that  DA2 will outsell Origins by a mile.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 mars 2011 - 12:54 .

[AkiKishi]

Yrkoon wrote...

Both Diablos are absolutely dumbed down, mindless hack-n-slashes as far as RPGs go, But despite that, I absolutely loved them. They were simply fun as hell. Period. To me, those games are my "guilty pleasures"..... I'd never admit to my friends in real life that I enjoyed them... but, I did.

I liked Diablo too. It never claimed to be anything other than what it was. The sequels have built on that. It's not an RPG as such, but it has some very solid character building at it's core.

Rixxencaxx wrote...

The funny thing is that they sold out their core audience for nothing...This game will not sell more than origins, they will fail to gain a wider audience.

Maybe,maybe not. They have certainly advertised it enough. One thing that makes me think you could be right though. I've seen price drops in various online places. The place I usually use has dropped the price by £5 as of last week. When that happens other online retailers tend to do the same.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 07 mars 2011 - 12:43 .

[Rixxencaxx]

Yrkoon wrote...

Both Diablos are absolutely dumbed down, mindless hack-n-slashes as far as RPGs go, But despite that, I absolutely loved them. They were simply fun as hell. Period. To me, those games are my "guilty pleasures"..... I'd never admit to my friends in real life that I enjoyed them... but, I did.

I like diablo too. My concern is that all the gaming industry wants cod and wow audience so we heve only mindless clones of them and different genres are dying. This is funny cause almost all SH that tried to create successfull mmorpg failed.

[moilami]

Yrkoon wrote...

Both Diablos are absolutely dumbed down, mindless hack-n-slashes as far as RPGs go, But despite that, I absolutely loved them. They were simply fun as hell. Period. To me, those games are my "guilty pleasures"..... I'd never admit to my friends in real life that I enjoyed them... but, I did.

HAHAHAHA, alright, I will have to pick Diablos next time I see them in el cheapo bin.