1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

FedericoV wrote...



Because no one want to admit that BG I was allready an action RPG that belonged more to the Diabloesque approach to gameplay than the classic turn based one...

So you can control 6 players at the same time in Diablo? Thats the real difference right there. BG was created from a RTS frame.

[moilami]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

FedericoV wrote...



Because no one want to admit that BG I was allready an action RPG that belonged more to the Diabloesque approach to gameplay than the classic turn based one...

So you can control 6 players at the same time in Diablo? Thats the real difference right there. BG was created from a RTS frame.

I could surprise people here and explain how DA][ actually have more complex combat than BG. But I don't do it lol.

[Rasputin]

I refuse to admit that we are in a decline.... maybe if I close my eyes I new game will get created that will be like an RPG of the past...

*closes eyes*

...

[TheBearMage]

[quote]Lord_Darkmoon wrote...

 You couldn't sit down anymore, you couldn't bake bread anymore... Is this evolution?

[quote]

Bahahahah

[didymos1120]

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.

Ah, sorry.  You seemed to be genuinely enthusiastic about it, rather than ironic.  Perils of text-based conversation.

[moilami]

didymos1120 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.

Ah, sorry.  You seemed to be genuinely enthusiastic about it, rather than ironic.  Perils of text-based conversation.

Good jokes always make me excited.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Aidunno wrote...

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.

Some things are not subjective. The BG 2 manual was 260 pages and there were over 250 spells. You could have 6 people in your party at once. You could attack and kill almost every civilian in the game. You could use large parties in the Gold Box games too with 6 to 8. Even on the Commodore 64 the Gold box games had day and night
cycles.

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 07 mars 2011 - 09:35 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Rasputin wrote...

I refuse to admit that we are in a decline.... maybe if I close my eyes I new game will get created that will be like an RPG of the past...

*closes eyes*

...

[Aidunno]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

The BG 2 manual was 260 pages and there were over 250 spells. You could have 6 people in your party at once. You could attack and kill almost every civilian in the game. You could use large parties in the Gold Box games too with 6 to 8. Even on the Commodore 64 the Gold box games had day and night
cycles.

So day and night cycles (done in a different way in DA2), large parties and a book for a manual make a classic RPG ? Or is it simply the fact they frequently used PnP rulesets and "copied" them onto a computer?

[AlanC9]

Impresario wrote...

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.

I actually saw that as a failed experiment -- can we integrate DLC acquisition into the game itself, rather than make players go outside the environment? I don't think Bio appreciated how much some people are hostile to marketing.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

moilami wrote...




I could surprise people here and explain how DA][ actually have more complex combat than BG. But I don't do it lol.

True or not it doesnt need much. Pluck a couple party members from the camp fire, mix in some different AI, weaknesses, and about 75 more spells and DA might be more complex than BG 1 and close to enough to 2. As  long as you have level scaling and sidescroller encounter design it wont be half as fun. 

[AlanC9]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
Some things are not subjective. The BG 2 manual was 260 pages and there were over 250 spells. You could have 6 people in your party at once. You could attack and kill almost every civilian in the game. You could use large parties in the Gold Box games too with 6 to 8. Even on the Commodore 64 the Gold box games had day and night
cycles.

Sure. But whether those things are worth having is subjective.

Of the five things you mention, one strikes me as outright bad, one as not worth the zots, and three as irrelevant.

[Pyrate_d]

Assuming that there has been a decrease in quality, I blame the customers. Bioware's goal is to deliver a product that people are willing to buy. The more people buy, the more successful they are. I'm not saying that Bioware has no standards of quality, I'm saying that their standards of quality are based around making their product as appealing as possible. This will maximize their profit.

If the best method of appealing to consumers is a dumbed down, low quality game with tons of DLC, then you can hardly blame Bioware for delivering that game.

I'm not saying that DA2 is dumbed down--in fact, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that RPGs are in decline. I'm just saying that the companies are not to blame.

Modifié par Pyrate_d, 07 mars 2011 - 09:51 .

[moilami]

Pyrate_d wrote...

Assuming that there has been a decrease in quality, I blame the customers. Bioware's goal is to deliver a product that people are willing to buy. The more people buy, the more successful they are. I'm not saying that Bioware has no standards of quality, I'm saying that their standards of quality are based around making their product as appealing as possible. This will maximize their profit.

If the best method of appealing to consumers is a dumbed down, low quality game with tons of DLC, then you can hardly blame Bioware for delivering that game.

I'm not saying that DA2 is dumbed down--in fact, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that RPGs are in decline. I'm just saying that the companies are not to blame.

Even though the combat is more complex the game still is dumbed down. That nullifies the theoretical gains of more complex combat. One thing to realize is that more complex combat does not mean the combat would be more challenging.

(I have been thinking why people want to be so serious. Being serious by definition means not having fun. People don't want to have fun? Lol.)

[AlanC9]

moilami, there's a difference between being nonserious and being confusing. It looks to me like you've ended up on the wrong side of that line a few times here.

[moilami]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

Rasputin wrote...

I refuse to admit that we are in a decline.... maybe if I close my eyes I new game will get created that will be like an RPG of the past...

*closes eyes*

...

What game is that? Looks very funny. One thing what is interesting in that picture is that even though the graphics has changed the fact has not changed. Dragons are Dragons

Good nostalgia burst what the new generation can't get yet But they can enjoy of nostalgia in year 2025 when DA is not anymore the first RPG-like they have played.

Edit: Darn, someone should make an RPG where you are a dragon. A real dragon and not some wannabe druid shifter. You would get attacked by crazy and greedy adventurers. And....

Edit: Or an RPG where you are a kobold or orc. Have waited for that kind of RPG for very long time. Would be so easy to make something unique - yet none makes it.

Modifié par moilami, 07 mars 2011 - 10:29 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Aidunno wrote...

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

The BG 2 manual was 260 pages and there were over 250 spells. You could have 6 people in your party at once. You could attack and kill almost every civilian in the game. You could use large parties in the Gold Box games too with 6 to 8. Even on the Commodore 64 the Gold box games had day and night
cycles.

So day and night cycles (done in a different way in DA2), large parties and a book for a manual make a classic RPG ? Or is it simply the fact they frequently used PnP rulesets and "copied" them onto a computer?

Both though though I would argue that mechanics and design are more important than pnp rules. Pool of Radiance 2 was a good translation of D&D rules (for what thats worth) but the game stunk.

Dragon Age has a terrible ruleset. The  damage, hp and the balance of its classes along with the ability requirements should be tossed and rewritten. 

 DA is a double departure. Not because it isnt D&D. Its not hard to top or better mimic D&D. I can name a couple indie RPGs that did it.

[Dlokir]

moilami wrote...
...
Edit: Darn, someone should make an RPG where you are a dragon. A real dragon and not some wannabe druid shifter. You would get attacked by crazy and greedy adventurers. And....
...

Dragon Knight Saga, not all people enjoyed the Dragon parts myself I did. But not it's not that easy and no in this one you don't fight greedy adventurers.

Edit: Or an RPG where you are a kobold or orc. Have waited for that kind of RPG for very long time. Would be so easy to make something unique - yet none makes it.

You'll argue it's not the same but you could play a half orc in NWN series, but only some details was changed in the story because you was half orc.

In a NWN1 expansion one of the best companion ever was a kobold, if I remember he makes a come back in another expansion.

But I doubt it's easy to make a RPG where you are a dragon. This involves a lot of problem, in dragon form you couldn't enter in any town nor in most dungeons, and so on. Design obstacle to build something wich isn't like a wide open space isn't easy with such flying character.

Also having the main character as a real Orc or Kobold out of human civilization would be quite a challenge to not have the player feel the Orc civilization is the human civilization.

Also being deeply original and out of all convetions is far to be a garanty of success, it's a higher challenge and could easilly end in failure disaster.

[moilami]

Dlokir wrote...

moilami wrote...
...
Edit: Darn, someone should make an RPG where you are a dragon. A real dragon and not some wannabe druid shifter. You would get attacked by crazy and greedy adventurers. And....
...

Dragon Knight Saga, not all people enjoyed the Dragon parts myself I did. But not it's not that easy and no in this one you don't fight greedy adventurers.

Edit: Or an RPG where you are a kobold or orc. Have waited for that kind of RPG for very long time. Would be so easy to make something unique - yet none makes it.

You'll argue it's not the same but you could play a half orc in NWN series, but only some details was changed in the story because you was half orc.

In a NWN1 expansion one of the best companion ever was a kobold, if I remember he makes a come back in another expansion.

But I doubt it's easy to make a RPG where you are a dragon. This involves a lot of problem, in dragon form you couldn't enter in any town nor in most dungeons, and so on. Design obstacle to build something wich isn't like a wide open space isn't easy with such flying character.

Also having the main character as a real Orc or Kobold out of human civilization would be quite a challenge to not have the player feel the Orc civilization is the human civilization.

Also being deeply original and out of all convetions is far to be a garanty of success, it's a higher challenge and could easilly end in failure disaster.

Deekin was the kobold. He came first time in SotU and next time in HotU. But I meant, like you guessed, an RPG where you can RP in the monster culture's point of view.

Dragon RP would be very hard to do, it would be so extraordinary that I got lost when thinking what Dragons want to do and how to implement it, again, like you described.

Talking about Deekin and NWN. Again something what can't happen in these dumbed down RPGs. I was facing the boss in HotU with Rouge/Assassin/SD. After a couple of tries where I had absolutely no chances to kill the boss I tried again and read Summon Monster VII or something scroll. The froggy mob appeared and made the death spell which name I can't remember and the boss rolled "1" and so the summoned froggy WTF PWNED big time the boss. That was epic ending to HotU, and one of the most epic and memorable moments in my RPing experiences.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

moilami wrote...



What game is that? Looks very funny. One thing what is interesting in that picture is that even though the graphics has changed the fact has not changed. Dragons are Dragons

Good nostalgia burst what the new generation can't get yet But they can enjoy of nostalgia in year 2025 when DA is not anymore the first RPG-like they have played.

Edit: Darn, someone should make an RPG where you are a dragon. A real dragon and not some wannabe druid shifter. You would get attacked by crazy and greedy adventurers. And....

Edit: Or an RPG where you are a kobold or orc. Have waited for that kind of RPG for very long time. Would be so easy to make something unique - yet none makes it.

The game is Knight of the Chalice. Never
played it but I might.

It would be interesting to roleplay a Dragon. The game would need some deep coding. I dont think fedex quest would work.  

AlanC9 wrote...


Sure. But whether those things are worth having is[/i] subjective.

Of the five things you mention, one strikes me as outright bad, one as not worth the zots, and three as irrelevant.

Their presense isnt subjective. Neither was their removal replaced or upgraded. 250 spells could have been replaced with spell creation and “infinite combos”.



6 person parties could have been upgraded with the ability to raise an army and turn later portions of the game when you are high in level into a RTS.

Day and night could have been bolstered with nocturnal AI, creatures and classes that are more powerful at night, and real weather simulations could have been added that affect combat.

Baldur’s Gate’s civilian killing system could have been tweaked so the penalty is greater and accidents are managed with the ability to yield or use nonlethal force.

The added features could balloon the manual to 300 pages.

So what you have is less of something. It doesn’t matter if you like it. That’s the point. The developers didn’t seem to care as much about demographics because they wanted something that was over your head…
at least that was the feeling you get with a 260 page manual that quotes its inspiration from the Wizardry games, Ultima, and the Gold Box games.  

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 07 mars 2011 - 11:10 .

[TEWR]

I thought this was the Bioware Social forums, not the "This reviewer said this about the new game!" forums? Maybe I was wrong....

I don't care what reviewers say. You know why? Because that's only ONE person reviewing it, and giving their take on what's wrong with it in their opinion. Because that's all it is. Opinions.

The dialogue to me is akin, though in wheel form, to Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. I've said this comparison at least 3 times before. You pick your option and PC speaks his line. I was able to expect what Hawke said all the time, from the demo anyway. And in Star Ocean, Fayt Leingod would speak some of the lines you chose verbatim, and at other times would paraphrase but still give the whole point.

People just see something that was in Mass Effect and then call it a Fantasy Mass Effect. Some people aren't even really thinking about the dialogue. You expect Hawke to say something, that upon you finding out he says something else, you discover what you thought he would say actually makes no sense whatsoever. But you try and blame it on the developers instead of just saying "Well... I guess that wouldn't make sense for him to say 'Don't worry Mom, Carver will have a bunch of Darkspawn to keep him company, despite Darkspawn having no souls and thus being unable to actually be anywhere near Carver when I kill them'."

[Dlokir]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
...
Both though though I would argue that mechanics and design are more important than pnp rules. Pool of Radiance 2 was a good translation of D&D rules (for what thats worth) but the game stunk.

Dragon Age has a terrible ruleset. The  damage, hp and the balance of its classes along with the ability requirements should be tossed and rewritten. 
...

Well some explanation would be welcome. Clearly DAO was a first version and its failure was to not have enough talents per class allowing too few different build, with the exception of the mage class. For other classes build are mainly restricted to the choices of specializations.

There's about 320 spells in BG2 but there are many... 'but'. There are many duplicates about 20, a handful of non combat spells ie about 10, there's many spells that are rather double of other like 7 different spells only for hold. And if I count well, there's 17 spells just for summoning various stuff but in no way it really means 17 different tactical possibilites. There are also many totally pointless spells even if that is more subjective. And there are many spells that tend be pointless at higher level because their effect are static.

But how many fighter/Rogue/Archer special attacks? Well very very few and with very few effects.

Also a key not working that well in BG2 is about ballance, BG2 SoA had plenty fights that are solved during the first seconds, a matter or dominating or be dominated totally breaking balance during the first seconds. I think BG2 ToB shown a lot of improvements in fights. BG1 had a big problems with long range a lot overpowerful and magic low level far to offer so many possibilities. But yes the party of 6 is a huge plus in both game to increase tactic depth, and fights was matching well a high rate of auto pauses providing a depth that don't have fights not fully designed for fights like those of NWN series or of DAO.

Modifié par Dlokir, 07 mars 2011 - 11:20 .

[moilami]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...


It would be interesting to roleplay a Dragon. The game would need some deep coding. I dont think fedex quest would work. 

Lol, deffo would not work. Dragon RPG would need some heavy thinking.

[moilami]

Dlokir wrote...

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
...
Both though though I would argue that mechanics and design are more important than pnp rules. Pool of Radiance 2 was a good translation of D&D rules (for what thats worth) but the game stunk.

Dragon Age has a terrible ruleset. The  damage, hp and the balance of its classes along with the ability requirements should be tossed and rewritten. 
...

Well some explanation would be welcome. Clearly DAO was a first version and its failure was to not have enough talents per class allowing too few different build, with the exception of the mage class. For other classes build are mainly restricted to the choices of specializations.

There's about 320 spells in BG2 but there are many... 'but'. There are many duplicates about 20, a handful of non combat spells ie about 10, there's many spells that are rather double of other like 7 different spells only for hold. And if I count well, there's 17 spells just for summoning various stuff but in no way it really means 17 different tactical possibilites. There are also many totally pointless spells even if that is more subjective. And there are many spells that tend be pointless at higher level because their effect are static.

But how many fighter/Rogue/Archer special attacks? Well very very few and with very few effects.

Also a key not working that well in BG2 is about ballance, BG2 SoA had plenty fights that are solved during the first seconds, a matter or dominating or be dominated totally breaking balance during the first seconds. I think BG2 ToB shown a lot of improvements in fights. BG1 had a big problems with long range a lot overpowerful and magic low level far to offer so many possibilities. But yes the party of 6 is a huge plus in both game to increase tactic depth, and fights was matching well a high rate of auto pauses providing a depth that don't have fights not fully designed for like those of NWN series or of DAO.

17 summons  I should someday chose what is my "canon" playthrough in BG lol.

[moilami]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I thought this was the Bioware Social forums, not the "This reviewer said this about the new game!" forums? Maybe I was wrong....

To me there reads "social". Of course it is a matter of interpreation what that does mean. And since whatever can be argued of it I naturally default to my interpetation - knowing it will ****** those Law&Order OMG STAY ON TOPIC peeps.