1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockpopple]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Again, those elements, aside from the pre-gent character, apply to DA:O too. It's ridiculous to say that because DA2 contains a pre-gen character, and a big sword, and big boobs, it's like a jrpg.

99% of JRPGs don't allow you to shape the game or your world as you mostly see fit. 99% of jrpgs have character architypes that aren't found in western games. 99% of jrpgs really don't allow the gamer to immerse themselves in stats. 99% of jrpgs don't allow you to make friends or enemies with party members. 99% of jrpgs don't allow you to romance a particular character. 99% of jrpgs drive the story as something you're watching, not something your creating through your decisions.

These aren't BAD. These are what make jrpgs unique and fun. But they're not in DA:O and they're not in DA2.

But you seem intent on making your clownish comparison because for whatever reason you despise this game. Have at it hoss. Go nuts.

Makes no difference what so ever. A game that does not have a pre-gen character can not be compared to a JRPG for obvious reasons.

You really have not played many JRPGs if you came up with those numbers. You can do most of those things, although not in such an obvious way as you can in a western RPG.

Dragon Quest IX not only had a custom-created main character, the entire party was custom created. By your clownish logic, Dragon Quest IX wasn't a JRPG. I don't think you even know what you're arguing against anymore.

[AkiKishi]

JohnEpler wrote...

That's enough of the 'what is a JRPG/WRPG' tangent. Bring it back on-topic.

I don't really get how that is off-topic...

It's fairly clear from ME and now DA2 that Bioware is adopting a sort of half way JRPG/WRPG game model.

[Rockpopple]

JohnEpler wrote...

That's enough of the 'what is a JRPG/WRPG' tangent. Bring it back on-topic.

My bad. I wont talk about that anymore. It was going nowhere anyway.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 07 mars 2011 - 07:03 .

[Jwlynas]

It's curious that the idea of making money is a damnable offense to some people. Bioware are consistent in their creation of good games, and I believe they're due money for creating these good games. If they have to add bonus to those people willing to pay, then so be it. Those people unwilling to pay don't get the game, nor the bonuses. Is this unfair? is this somehow immoral, to not give things freely when they cost money to make?

DLC is all well and good. I get that some people are offended by the idea of buying a full game, then having to pay extra for bits of the game that had been cut out... but that isn't the case here. this isn't a case of spending 100% of the price to get 75% pf the end product, its spending 100% of the price to get 100% of the product, with opportunity to receive extra parts for extra money, for a total end level of 125% of the game for 125% of the price.

Hell, when it comes to gameplay times, Bioware are still well ahead of the game. Most games don't last more than 10-15 hours even if you take your time. When was the last time you played a bioware game that took any less than 20, if you rushed it, skipped past all cutscenes and dialogue and knew exactly where you were going?

[AkiKishi]

Rockpopple wrote...
Dragon Quest IX not only had a custom-created main character, the entire party was custom created. By your clownish logic, Dragon Quest IX wasn't a JRPG. I don't think you even know what you're arguing against anymore.

You had a custon created Celestial. DQ IX is not a typical JRPG, they do mix it up every so often and do something different. DQIX was created a multi-player game in case that escaped your notice.

So yes I'm perfectly fine with not saying that DQIX is not a typical JRPG. But it hardly makes your point.

[Whatever42]

I will agree with the dialogue wheel I saw in the demo as being a little annoying. I don't mind the wheel in general, I thought it worked well in ME1 & 2. But in ME, despite some up and down VA, the tones weren't wildly different. In the DA2 demo, going from a grunting matter-of-fact tone to a soft-spoken smooth tone was jarring. I hope that's not consistant throughout the game.

[AlanC9]

BobSmith101 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

That's enough of the 'what is a JRPG/WRPG' tangent. Bring it back on-topic.

I don't really get how that is off-topic...

It's fairly clear from ME and now DA2 that Bioware is adopting a sort of half way JRPG/WRPG game model.

I think it's not relevant because how you categorize the game isn't important. Saying that DA2 is somehow similar to JRPGs doesn't say anything of interest about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Siven80 wrote...

Sure you could in DAO....but it would be counter-productive.

Oh wait....you like freedom to do stuff like that dont you, yet the majority dont.

Forget Merrill, then.  I used her as an example because I usually use Isabela, and I wanted to change things up (and which I use isn't material to my point).

Giving Leliana massive armour in DAO wasn't necessarily counter productive.  She made a decent tank, and she could pick locks.  Can we give Isabela those same armour stats?

If not, then we've lost something beyond just the customisation of appearance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I think it's not relevant because how you categorize the game isn't important. Saying that DA2 is somehow similar to JRPGs doesn't say anything of interest about it.

That's right.  If there's some specific feature that would place it in one category or the other, discussing the feature (and not the category) keeps the discussion on-topic.

[moilami]

didymos1120 wrote...

Mercb3ast wrote...

Video games are being dumbed down for the internet kid generation.

You forgot to work in the following terms and idioms, as required by the Gaming Elitist Denigrator Handbook: Hack and slash. Michael Baysplosions. Not sufficiently tactical. Lowest Common Denominator. The ADHD twitch crowd. COD players.  My lawn.  Get off it. 

A mention of either The Witcher 2 or Skyrim is also recommended.  Preferably, both.

HAHAHAHA, but I completely agree with you. We should develop terminology to better describe what dumbers want to achieve and why it happens.


Edit: I want to add a new terminology "sub par challenge."

Edit: New terminology "button smashers".

Modifié par moilami, 07 mars 2011 - 08:02 .

[Rockpopple]

Dude, why don't you do a Youtube playthrough of DA:II in Nightmare mode (like many do for other games) without dying before proclaiming that it's a "sub par challenge".

I mean seriously... the way you talk around here it sounds like you're trying to overcompensate for something.

[Impresario]

Jwlynas wrote...

It's curious that the idea of making money is a damnable offense to some people.

It's not that making money is a damnable offense but whether the integrity of various creative decisions are degraded by corporate fiscal pressures.  When the elimination of risk (in pursuit of higher revenues) subsumes creative independence, something has to give. That "something," is an intangible such as a game's soul. A singular vision with a final cut privilege is an anathema under this conglomerated corporate structure.  Ask yourself, do you think that the Pixar movies would have been as unique if the director's vision was expressly subject to unwarranted interference.

[moilami]

Rockpopple wrote...

Dude, why don't you do a Youtube playthrough of DA:II in Nightmare mode (like many do for other games) without dying before proclaiming that it's a "sub par challenge".

I mean seriously... the way you talk around here it sounds like you're trying to overcompensate for something.

Uh, you get me totally wrong. I am a cherry picker. Unless DA][ is better than BG there is no way I would even think about doing no-reloads real playthrough on DA][.

You know I do stuff for fun.

[didymos1120]

moilami wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Mercb3ast wrote...

Video games are being dumbed down for the internet kid generation.

You forgot to work in the following terms and idioms, as required by the Gaming Elitist Denigrator Handbook: Hack and slash. Michael Baysplosions. Not sufficiently tactical. Lowest Common Denominator. The ADHD twitch crowd. COD players.  My lawn.  Get off it. 

A mention of either The Witcher 2 or Skyrim is also recommended.  Preferably, both.

HAHAHAHA, but I completely agree with you. We should develop terminology to better describe what dumbers want to achieve and why it happens.


Edit: I want to add a new terminology "sub par challenge."

Edit: New terminology "button smashers".

Wow. Yeah, see you completely missed the point of that.  I was mocking that sort of copy/paste conformist language;  a phenomenon which I find quite ironic given all the "Stick it to the soulless corporate man" posturing that nigh-inevitably accompanies that sort of rote "critical" rhetoric.  Argumentum ad catchphrase does not impress. Sure is popular on them thar interwebs though.

Modifié par didymos1120, 07 mars 2011 - 08:21 .

[AlanC9]

Impresario wrote...
It's not that making money is a damnable offense but whether the integrity of various creative decisions are degraded by corporate fiscal pressures.  When the elimination of risk (in pursuit of higher revenues) subsumes creative independence, something has to give. That "something," is an intangible such as a game's soul. A singular vision with a final cut privilege is an anathema under this conglomerated corporate structure.  Ask yourself, do you think that the Pixar movies would have been as unique if the director's vision was expressly subject to unwarranted interference.

The problem with talk about "soul" is that there's no content there. How can you define that something has "soul" in anything but a completely subjective fashion?

[moilami]

didymos1120 wrote...

moilami wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Mercb3ast wrote...

Video games are being dumbed down for the internet kid generation.

You forgot to work in the following terms and idioms, as required by the Gaming Elitist Denigrator Handbook: Hack and slash. Michael Baysplosions. Not sufficiently tactical. Lowest Common Denominator. The ADHD twitch crowd. COD players.  My lawn.  Get off it. 

A mention of either The Witcher 2 or Skyrim is also recommended.  Preferably, both.

HAHAHAHA, but I completely agree with you. We should develop terminology to better describe what dumbers want to achieve and why it happens.


Edit: I want to add a new terminology "sub par challenge."

Edit: New terminology "button smashers".

Wow. Yeah, see you completely missed the point of that.  I was mocking that sort of copy/paste conformist language;  a phenomenon which I find quite ironic given all the "Stick it to the soulless corporate man" posturing that nigh-inevitably accompanies that sort of rote "critical" rhetoric.  Argumentum ad catchphrase does not impress. Sure is popular on them thar interwebs though.

How one could "miss the point" of so obvious? You fail to see I get big lols of self-irony. You also fail to see that this is just casual tongue in the cheek chatting for me. Not trying to impress, not trying to make a point, not trying to change the world, just typing whatever for joy and lols.

[Melness]

moilami wrote...

How one could "miss the point" of so obvious? You fail to see I get big lols of self-irony. You also fail to see that this is just casual tongue in the cheek chatting for me. Not trying to impress, not trying to make a point, not trying to change the world, just typing whatever for joy and lols.

Also known as blatant trolling.

[moilami]

Melness wrote...

moilami wrote...

How one could "miss the point" of so obvious? You fail to see I get big lols of self-irony. You also fail to see that this is just casual tongue in the cheek chatting for me. Not trying to impress, not trying to make a point, not trying to change the world, just typing whatever for joy and lols.

Also known as blatant trolling.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
Blatant \\Bla"tant\\, a. [Cf. Bleat.]
Bellowing, as a calf; bawling; brawling; clamoring;
disagreeably clamorous; sounding loudly and harshly. "Harsh
and blatant tone." --R. H. Dana.
[1913 Webster]

A monster, which the blatant beast men call. --Spenser.
[1913 Webster]

Glory, that blatant word, which haunts some military
minds like the bray of the trumpet. --W. Irving.
[1913 Webster]

From WordNet ® 2.0 : blatant
adj 1: without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious;
"open disregard of the law"; "open family strife";
"open hostility"; "a blatant appeal to vanity"; "a
blazing indiscretion" [syn: blazing, conspicuous,
open]
2: conspicuously and offensively loud; given to vehement
outcry; "blatant radios"; "a clamorous uproar"; "strident
demands"; "a vociferous mob" [syn: clamant, clamorous,
strident, vociferous]

Sooo, you are saying that if I don't mimic your opinions I am obviously trolling.

Nothing new.

Tell me. What's the point in mimicing your opinions? Other than getting respect
in this forum.

[panamakira]

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

Dragon Age 2 review by a typical Dragon Age 2 hater.

It brings tears to my eyes. It's beautiful. Also because it uses Kinetic Typography. Ahh you interwebz, I love you!

[Melness]

Sooo, you are saying that if I don't mimic your opinions I am obviously trolling.

Not trying to impress, not trying to make a point, not trying to change the world, just typing whatever for joy and lols.

You're not trying to mimic anyone's opinions, in fact, you're not trying to mimic your own. You're typing whatever for joy and lols, not being constructive and spamming idiotic images of a bug in attempts to draw heated arguments. That is called trolling.

In fact, both of us are trolling.

Modifié par Melness, 07 mars 2011 - 08:43 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

abadomen wrote...

How is the action RPG the evolution of CRPGs when Action RPGS were around at the same time?

Not just action but fake action. 

[moilami]

SaviorPilate wrote...

I don't know why I bothered to try to put my opinion on a public thread like this.  It just enrages me that the people who drive the games industry forward are the same as its customers on the larger scale -- stupid.  I think it's safe to assume that the majority of you don't care about art being enslaved by corporate greed, because most of your reasons boil down to, "It's simple, it makes more money."  That kind of thinking is reprehensible to me.

Plenty of quality games were made before the driving force was to get rich.  Plenty of games are still made without that as a driving force.  But as long as the way you think doesn't change, the industry never will.  You don't realize that by paying money for products that are made in this way, you're supporting it perpetually.  You don't understand that to change the model for the better (something that nobody cares about, anyway), you have to actually have an impact by refusing to pay for products that are created by ruining smaller companies, by trashing the very idea of what it means to create games as art.  To support EA is to help hold back the industry for all of the people like me who are passionate about real art.

Even if the game is amazing, it still represents part of the death of Bioware.  But nobody cares about those "political" aspects of the industry, they only care if they like games or not, which is why it takes millions of dollars to make games, and why every good studio that makes a name for itself ends up being acquisitioned by a larger company, then dismantled and sold off.

And it's the same reason that idiots with Business degrees end up running game companies.

But, I acknowledge that I've wasted my time writing on here at all.

This was interesting reading and I got confirmation on what you think.

The same what you wrote has been said of music, movies, and books.

I admit that you have a point, but the issue is not so easy since the world is not black and white. Professionals tend to do better movies, cars, books, games, music and what not. And at some point professionals begin to go deep on what people want, and after that they make it for people.

I think the world very much works pretty optimally (regarding creative entertainment stuff), as much as it can in this chaos. That's why I don't share those cynical and pessimistical views, even though I understand the worries.

[moilami]

Melness wrote...

Sooo, you are saying that if I don't mimic your opinions I am obviously trolling.

Not trying to impress, not trying to make a point, not trying to change the world, just typing whatever for joy and lols.

You're not trying to mimic anyone's opinions, in fact, you're not trying to mimic your own. You're typing whatever for joy and lols, not being constructive and spamming idiotic images of a bug in attempts to draw heated arguments. That is called trolling.

In fact, both of us are trolling.

Hmm, unless you think people here enjoy you discussing about me, please PM your postings directly to me. I hate to get trolled by your type and answer to that kind of postings. But I think I need to learn control my pride demon and just ignore straight away postings discussing me, so this is good training.

[Impresario]

AlanC9 wrote...
The problem with talk about "soul" is that there's no content there. How can you define that something has "soul" in anything but a completely subjective fashion?

It's entirely subjective, but perhaps one can look towards examples of what is soulless. I would cite placing characters in-game that expressly exist for purposes of marketing DLC as an example of a soulless decision. That type of decision may be emblematic about how creative decisions are subject to external pressures.

[Aidunno]

Talking about "soul being subjective" we still, in 46 pages, haven't decided what makes a classic RPG. Without this we cannot state that DA2 is pointing to a decline of the classic RPG experience. We have stated some things that individuals count as being part of this "soul" but tying it down is a lot harder. It's a subjective feeling rather than something that can be pinned down.