Xena_Shepard wrote...
I do believe that hardcore RPG fans, like myself, are upset because this signifies that the days of intelligent gaming are over. Games are being dumbed down for today's stupid generation. It's working, apparently...
That's not to say that simplification is a bad thing in some cases, I absolutely loved ME2, and I am a diehard RPG fan. It's just that DA2 was less simplified and more stupified. If they had made it simpler whilst keeping the core-RPG elements of a good storyline, intriguing characters, etc. It would've been masterful.
Whenever I see someone who likes this game, all I think is: "Wow...they like this game? Huh, I guess the world really IS getting dumber."
I get so sick and tired of seeing this everywhere, this "intelligent gaming" bullcrap. NWN and Baldur's Gate weren't "intelligent gaming", it was NICHE gaming. It was catered solely to the nerds and fands of D&D who understood those mechanics. The games themselves were prohibitively difficult for anyone who wasn't initimately familiar with the source material, and basically turned off people had difficulties comprehending them.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. Making a game that solely caters to a particularly small group of gamers is NOT good business. Not only that, it turns off gamers from wanting to play outside of their favorite genre. Someone interested in trying RPGs would find themselves quickly clueless and frustrated by games like Planescape, whose overly complicated mechanics and novel-sized amounts of texts would overwhelm them.
RPGs are not being "dumbed down", simplification and streamlining do NOT equal "dumbed down" nor "casualization". Simply because the game LOOKS hack and slash, doesn't mean it is. If DA2 is hack and slash simply because the mechanics are easier to understand (like the faster combat animations and vastly improved talent tree), then DA:O was also nothing more than a slower hack-and-slash. The underlying game mechanics are essentially identical with a few core changes separating them. But the game is not "dumber" for being accessible to audiences outside of RPGs.
The fact that it has less is merely signs that 'more is not always better'. No one complained in Mass Effect that Shepard was ONLY a human and only had a few class options. DA:O was about the story of a new Grey Warden, so having the racial options made sense. But DA2 is about the story of Hawke, a human fleeing the destruction in DA:O, and making a name for him(or her!)self. That doesn't make Hawke any less "your" character.
The "loss of dialogue" is a deceptive one. You rarely had more than 4-5 options in DA:O, they just happened to be complete sentences rather than paraphrases. And what's more, most of those options save the info dumps never resulted in a significant change. Sometimes the reaction was the same regardless of any choice. What's worse, it being unvoiced meant what you thought was sarcasm was taken literally. All DA2 did was cut out the filler and now make it blatantly obvious what Hawke's intent will be.
The skills are the same way. Simply because it's a tree rather than a flat list, and lacks a lot of the mostly useless or filler passives and other junk doesn't make it worse. You can still develop a character the way you want, it simply isn't going to be the same character as DA:O. For example, the "skills" like Stealing and Combat tactics being gone are probably one of the biggest improvements. You don't have to worry about whether you banked Tactics just to make the AI more competant.
This idea that the game lacking these makes it less of an RPG is completely outrageous. You don't need to eumulate D&D or inclue such complicated functions to be an actual RPG.
Modifié par RiouHotaru, 12 mars 2011 - 09:59 .
Retour en haut
), auto attack on consoles (supposedly a mistake), difficulty (hard feels like normal in DAII).
