1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Melness]

GvazElite wrote...

Relevant to the discussion:



This is the fanbase they want for RPGs. This is who they are catering to. This is an actual quote the lead designer has said.
:sick:

By the way, none of those things by themselves make an RPG.

Because he totally said that bolded part.

Face it, rpg mechanics aren't unique.

[Siven80]

Nothing wrong with that quote.

Those are rpg mechaincs, and if DA2 can attract more people to play RPGs, then thats a good thing.

Again, everyone has a different opinion on what is or isnt an RPG. Anyone can twist quotes to backup their arguments.

[Jordy Laforge]

ibortolis wrote...

worth reading it

http://www.hookedgam...lassic_rpg.html

a small summary,thanks to gamebanshee:

"None of this would be so much of an issue if BioWare lived up to their
promises and actually provided two viable styles of playing the game.
Everyone can sympathise with their decision to add real-time combat to
the game and make it easier for new players to get into the game, in
fact we support it. The more people you can get to play your game the
better; cRPGs are notoriously hard to start off with so making things a
bit easier for beginners is great. However, the issue arises when you
change the very core of the game. The real time combat should in fact be
harder to play. At the beginning of The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall,
players were asked if they would like high or low player reflexes
enabled, the slower being easier because players could adopt “a more
cautious and thoughtful playstyle”. This is the kind of option that
should be given in Dragon Age 2. Instead the game only truly caters to
the fast, button-mashing style.

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. While playing the demo, pausing the game to
issue an attack on an enemy just felt completely ridiculous, as they
would have already landed 3 attacks on you by the time you have done
one. The only possible way to do it is to pause and unpause the game
every half a second, therefore forcing players to simply mash buttons
until the enemy is dead. Dragon Age 2 is a real-time Action-RPG, and so
having the pause-play (that only really works with the slower pace of
turn-based RPG’s) is just an unnecessary feature rather than another way
to play through the game.

Like many other developers, BioWare
have made their three main cRPG series into Action-RPGs with Mass Effect
2, Dragon Age 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic. There is no doubt that
these will be great games, but the problem is that they have been
sculpted to what will sell, rather than making the gaming experience
that a number of players are struggling to find nowadays. The market has
always been driven by sales, but nowadays the publishers and producers
are sacrificing genres in order to make more money. As said previously,
Dragon Age: Origins was a commercial success so there was no real need
to change the game so dramatically. This declination is inextricably
tied in to the popularity of consoles over PCs amongst today’s gamers.
As gaming spreads to mass audiences, producers and publishers are lured
by the money that comes along with it. In this case it seems that EA
have encouraged BioWare to open up the game to a bigger audience, and in
doing so have lost many aspects of the genre it once was.


Worse still, there are signs that the game has been rushed out to meet
publisher demands. The graphics are not going to mesmerise anyone, in
fact they don’t look any better compared to Origins, environments are
fairly dull looking but worst of all is weak level design. 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.
Narrow paths in an RPG is actually an oxymoron as the genre requires
freedom and an open world and should not be bottle-necking its players.
What this effect does however, is focus the game more towards combat as
is the nature of an action-RPG. It’s quite understandable that all of
these shortcomings have occurred as BioWare are making an effort to
bring out all three of their big RPGs in one year. Given that Dragon Age
2 has only had a maximum of two years in development, many of us
suspected that the game would fall short in some areas. This lack of an
open world, combined with the simple combat means that the game slides
even further from its origins. "

So what. Who said BioWare was responcible for the fate of old school crpg? This article is silly and entitled. Again I say a big.....SO WHAT.

[In Exile]

GvazElite wrote...

Relevant to the discussion:


This is the fanbase they want for RPGs. This is who they are catering to. This is an actual quote the lead designer has said.
:sick:

By the way, none of those things by themselves make an RPG.

No. But they are parts of RPGs. This is relevant to the discussion, but 100% in the opposite direction of what you're driving at.

What Laidlaw says is that core RPG features like leveling up, character building, etc. have now in different forms spread out to the most mainstream possible games. So selling RPG mechanics shouldn't be hard. What needs to happen is to have acessible introductions & mechanisms. And this is what they're doing with DA2.

To parallel what someone said earlier - if you've started spending as much time as I have looking at the mechanics of DA2, particularly on nightmare, it is well comparable to BG2 in terms of combat complexity.

[Gvaz]

Melness wrote...

Because he totally said that bolded part.

Face it, rpg mechanics aren't unique.

He totally did, because I saw the video where that image takes it from.

yes but,

rpg mechanics != rpg

edit: oh you bolded my text... did i say he said that? he's saying that because rpg mechanics are more mainstream now, that they'll feel more at home with rpgs in games. However, you can't call a game with rpg mechanics an rpg because theres more to it than that.

Modifié par GvazElite, 04 mars 2011 - 04:04 .

[AkiKishi]

Elsariel wrote...
I'm a huge fan of lots of dialogue so I will be disappointed if DA2 doesn't have that.  Personally, I think it's too early to say.  I haven't heard that DA2's direction has been "more combat, less talking" so forgive me if I don't take that opinion as fact just at this moment.

It's got half the lines of DA (localisation figures) but the game is shorter too so it may even out overall.

I was never claiming DA2 was more combat less talking. Rather I was pointing out the flaw in Bioware thinking that just because people play games with "stats" they will want to play an RPG.

[Medhia Nox]

Aside from thinking some games - like Mass Effect 2 should be designated "Action Adventure" games more akin to Max Payne. I think RPGs have improved amazingly over the three decades I've been playing them.

The stories of the gold box games weren't some transcendent experience. They were "classic D&D dungeon crawls". Then came games like Balder's Gate Age of RPGs - and while awesome for their time (and Jon Irenicus still remains excellent) they lacked the strength of today's RPGs.

Then came the Neverwinter Age - and I will refuse to say that any game is a better RPG game. I'm not talking about the single player storyline - that wasn't even relevant to me. I believe that Neverwinter finally brought a real RPG experience to the computer. Here was a game I could mod - run persistent, dynamic worlds on governed by DMs. It is the best RPG on the computer and I'm sorry for anyone who did not play this when persistent worlds were at their strongest.

Then came the "Open World" RPGs (they were likely around way before this - I'm not CRPG historian). Games like Oblivion and Fallout. They're amazing in their scope and freedom and FREEDOM is perhaps the greatest part of any RPG. Even the illusion of freedom is important. In tabletop RPGs we call the lack of freedom "railroading" and it's almost universally bad (though sometimes necessary to get the ball rolling.)

However - Dragon Age was my favorite "common" RPG model ever. My party felt alive, they had their own characteristics and motivations. My decisions actually mattered in the scope of the game world. And perhaps most importantly things you did could be really damaging. I altered the world by having my character make decisions - Fallout 1 and 2 were really the first games I was exposed to this radical change in RPGs.

I think some people are just old (and I'm not young) and they have rose colored glasses about their childhood and the games they played there. BTW - in tabletop RPGs (sorry folks, it's where your current hobby came from) we call them 'grognards'. It's a stupid name - but it fits this argument here too.

I look forward to the day where the Neverwinter model takes over completely. Toolset, DM Client, Player Client. If a CRPG doesn't have these three elements - I consider them "Old School Model". I think the Neverwinter model is the future - and I hope the new Neverwinter revives a young new genre of RPG.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

GvazElite wrote...

Relevant to the discussion:



This is the fanbase they want for RPGs. This is who they are catering to. This is an actual quote the lead designer has said.
:sick:

By the way, none of those things by themselves make an RPG.

Edit: Nevermind. In Exile already explain the detail. I understand now. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 04 mars 2011 - 04:09 .

[Ace Attorney]

That article is pure OPINION.
Guess what? I can formulate my own opinion of the game by playing it.

Modifié par T3hAnubis, 04 mars 2011 - 04:10 .

[Skyweir]

Yrkoon wrote...
*snip*

Most of this is true, old RPGs were by no means perfect.
We should evaluate DA2 on it's own merits and our own experiences then. Happily, we have the demo to do this (it is what it was made for).
I have done so, and found it lacking in many ways compared to other RPGs. So have the authors of this article.

True, first hand experience with a demonstration of the game. That is factual data, not hearsay or inherently biased marketing. Based on that, the game does fall through on a number of RPG staples that many RPG fans find integral. This is what the article is saying, and it is a perfectly valid conclusion to draw. 

If you do not care for these parts of an RPG, that is of course fine. But it is valid to critize the game for lacking features many players find integral.

[Melness]

GvazElite wrote...

Melness wrote...

Because he totally said that bolded part.

Face it, rpg mechanics aren't unique.

He totally did, because I saw the video where that image takes it from.

yes but,

rpg mechanics != rpg

edit: oh you bolded my text... did i say he said that? he's saying that because rpg mechanics are more mainstream now, that they'll feel more at home with rpgs in games. However, you can't call a game with rpg mechanics an rpg because theres more to it than that.

He said that if someone is used to mechanics that can be found in an rpg, the chances that they will feel at home while playing rpgs are great.

Its like playing your first MMORPG, no matter your opinion of the genre, I'm sure you'll feel right at home while playing with those attributes and stats.

[moilami]

Yrkoon wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

As I said earlier, I wasn t comparing DA2 to any speciffic games.

Rawgrim wrote...

You mostly used Planescape as an example. Try using the same points to the Might and Magic, or the Ultima series

Yay, grotesquely dishonest argument changes for the win.

I'm done with you.

u just failed to understand

Ultima I, Planescape etc were not done for masses.

The argument was that DA2 is dumbed down for masses (when compared to DA).

u fail

think again 

[LdyShayna]

BobSmith101 wrote...
DA2's combat is right out of Baldurs Gate:Dark Alliance and it's ilk. Champions of Norath etc. etc. It's hardly new. 

I would say this is the only thing I would emphasize in this discussion.  'Evolve or die' type arguments don't make any sense, as most of the changes made between DA: O and DA2  are NOT brand new ideas.  It isn't about evolution, it's about shifting target audiences.  There are certainly still arguments to be made in favor of DA2 while keeping this in mind, not the least of which is an attempt to determine the overlap of the target audiences and an attempt to analysize how many people are now well outside the target audience versus those who may be gained who wouldn't have even tried the game without the changes.  I would think those arguing for the changes might find this their strongest position, rather than the relatively weak argument that this is somehow totally about "progress".

[tacopacabana]

this critic is awful. (i'll assume its a guy) He doesnt know what hes talking about, hes using the demo and other reviews to review the game himself. Does he even know that you can enable auto attack? he doesnt even mention it. at first he says we need pause ans play to make it tactical, then he says the pause and play doesnt work well because its button mashing. ....????

[Rawgrim]

moilami wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

As I said earlier, I wasn t comparing DA2 to any speciffic games.

Rawgrim wrote...

You mostly used Planescape as an example. Try using the same points to the Might and Magic, or the Ultima series

Yay, grotesquely dishonest argument changes for the win.

I'm done with you.

u just failed to understand

Ultima I, Planescape etc were not done for masses.

The argument was that DA2 is dumbed down for masses (when compared to DA).

u fail

think again 

Quite right. Didn`t want to understand, would be the case, actually.

Modifié par Rawgrim, 04 mars 2011 - 04:21 .

[Merced652]

• hai guiz wer liek taekin rpgs 2 dah next levul
• Evolusheon
• prawgres
• hur hur itz a demoez
• rpg iz storwy tiem
• VO iz kewl
• dael wif itz

I'm sure i missed some of them because my soul was dying with every one i read.

Modifié par Merced652, 04 mars 2011 - 04:25 .

[AkiKishi]

tacopacabana wrote...

this critic is awful. (i'll assume its a guy) He doesnt know what hes talking about, hes using the demo and other reviews to review the game himself. Does he even know that you can enable auto attack? he doesnt even mention it. at first he says we need pause ans play to make it tactical, then he says the pause and play doesnt work well because its button mashing. ....????

He's not reviewing the game, he's reviewing aspects of the games design.

What he says is in the time it takes to hit pause you could have attacked more times. That's the difference really. In DA you could mash X but it would do nothing. In DA2 when you mash X you get an immediate response.

Without that lull between pressing X and attacking pausing seemed natural. Now pressing X some more seems more natural since pressing X does something.

[HyperLimited]

Not this again. <_<

If the old school want to rot in the past, so be it. Change is a part of life. Deal with it.

[Meltemph]

8 pages over a blogger website... I'm shocked.

As usual in this topic you have people trying their hardest to make sure everyone understands that they are not playing a "true" rpg... Because the older ones were just so deep and full of everything good in the world.

It's always funny though when you see someone one bring up Might and Magic or Ultima, you know that that is when they are just trying to make sure everyone knows that DA2 just inst hardcore like them.

[Rawgrim]

Autolycus wrote...

I personally don't see (other than upsetting a lot of people with attention defecits) why they cant have old school classic RPG game with modern graphics and technology....

Best of both worlds?

+200 approval.

[Rawgrim]

Meltemph wrote...

8 pages over a blogger website... I'm shocked.

As usual in this topic you have people trying their hardest to make sure everyone understands that they are not playing a "true" rpg... Because the older ones were just so deep and full of everything good in the world.

It's always funny though when you see someone one bring up Might and Magic or Ultima, you know that that is when they are just trying to make sure everyone knows that DA2 just inst hardcore like them.

That same "someone" also bragged about how good Bioware are at the storylines and the companions, and that that is a huge point in their favor...

[moilami]

GvazElite wrote...

Relevant to the discussion:



This is the fanbase they want for RPGs. This is who they are catering to. This is an actual quote the lead designer has said.
:sick:

By the way, none of those things by themselves make an RPG.

Lol good picture. The devs will probably have fun of us arguing here. So it is just fair we can have fun of them.

Could some BW apologist tell me what is so offensive if one says DA2 has been dumbed down for masses?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LdyShayna wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
DA2's combat is right out of Baldurs Gate:Dark Alliance and it's ilk. Champions of Norath etc. etc. It's hardly new. 

I would say this is the only thing I would emphasize in this discussion.  'Evolve or die' type arguments don't make any sense, as most of the changes made between DA: O and DA2  are NOT brand new ideas.  It isn't about evolution, it's about shifting target audiences.  There are certainly still arguments to be made in favor of DA2 while keeping this in mind, not the least of which is an attempt to determine the overlap of the target audiences and an attempt to analysize how many people are now well outside the target audience versus those who may be gained who wouldn't have even tried the game without the changes.  I would think those arguing for the changes might find this their strongest position, rather than the relatively weak argument that this is somehow totally about "progress".

Nice post. It's something to feed my mind. I hope you are right about shifting target audience and not about becoming "evolution". So, I take it,  Bioware will make Neverwinter Nights 3 or something very similar to Neverwinter Nights for "old school" fans?

[Yrkoon]

Rawgrim wrote...

moilami wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

As I said earlier, I wasn t comparing DA2 to any speciffic games.

Rawgrim wrote...

You mostly used Planescape as an example. Try using the same points to the Might and Magic, or the Ultima series

Yay, grotesquely dishonest argument changes for the win.

I'm done with you.

u just failed to understand

Ultima I, Planescape etc were not done for masses.

The argument was that DA2 is dumbed down for masses (when compared to DA).

u fail

think again 

Quite right. Didn`t want to understand, would be the case, actually.

Of  course  DA:O, BG2 and NWN  (no friendly fire on normal for that last one!) were done for the masses.  WTF are you guys on?