186 réponses à ce sujet

[Cquattro2009]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...



And i know what you mean, i didn't get why everyone was complaining about the ending either, i liked all the characters, But Anton Sugar was such an amazing bad guy i was extremley happy he survived to kill again:P

Agree. Bardem was awesome in that movie.

[Periodiko]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

DUDE OKDADIO NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN SUCKED
it started really good though had a great story but the ending SUCKED there was no climax the cop got killed by a buncha random guys the money disipeared and tommy lee jones character didnt even fit in the story
but your right i was wrong bout the whole driving miss daisy thing i ment annie hall won the oscar of 1978 i confuse the 2 for some odd reason
and 300 was awsome cuz it was a true story was visully amazing and the acting for the characters was great. i will admit though its not as good as braveheart or Gladiator

Just because you like goofy fantasy movies for manchildren doesn't mean that they should win Oscars, especially when we're talking about movies directed by the freaking Coen Brothers and Woody Allen.

[FatedHeart]

MW:2 Has a nice story... for the very short time it lasts.. its adrenaline filled fast paced action.. just what the average CoD Player is all after.. its an adrenaline rush, a thrill ride... People play it because they like it.



DA is something to get lost in, its something to sit down at 8am in the morning in a comfy chair, mini fridge stocked up next to you, surround sound on high, tv pulled up right close to you and the chair laid all the way back so all you can see is the screen... and you lose the whole day.

Both cater to two different types of people.. or two different types of gamer personality.. its impossible to compare them against each other.

However.. popularity does tend to rule all media, and sad to say... there wasnt a line of 1500 people at my local asda at 12am release day for DA:O... there was for MW:2... it shows how things are heading.



DA is too much of a misunderstood game.. too many gamers, casual and hardcore look at it as something to beat, they look at it to find the winning combination that will let them beat the game, the pattern that will get them through the game and make them feel like the best.. sadly thats what breeds the complaints on difficulty, and the stubborness to accept that a mage is more powerfull than a guy with a sword.. lore means nothing to those who see a game as something to beat..

[Jiggasaurus]

Y3110WD4RT wrote...

i am glad, when games go main stream they become generic, the lore and comlexiy of this wonderful game would be lost to mass appeal.

This.

I dont mind if the RPG genre stays out of the mainstram generic path that has infected the FPS genre. I think the shooter games get a bad rep for the cheapness the majority of them inflict take for instance the unreal engine, how many thousands of games were made using it 99% of them being complete crap not their fault though if i was them i'd try make as much cash as possible selling it aswell.

MW2 for me was a let down but Uncharted 2 was a great success. Heavy Rain looks like it could be a big game next year looks very promising read some of the developer blogs they are quite similar to posts on here wanting to make something a bit different, unfortunatly the production prices for mainstream games are so high now that most of the financial backers are not willing to gamble.

[Schyzm]

FatedHeart wrote...

MW:2 Has a nice story... for the very short time it lasts.. its adrenaline filled fast paced action.. just what the average CoD Player is all after.. its an adrenaline rush, a thrill ride... People play it because they like it.

DA is something to get lost in, its something to sit down at 8am in the morning in a comfy chair, mini fridge stocked up next to you, surround sound on high, tv pulled up right close to you and the chair laid all the way back so all you can see is the screen... and you lose the whole day.
Both cater to two different types of people.. or two different types of gamer personality.. its impossible to compare them against each other.
However.. popularity does tend to rule all media, and sad to say... there wasnt a line of 1500 people at my local asda at 12am release day for DA:O... there was for MW:2... it shows how things are heading.

DA is too much of a misunderstood game.. too many gamers, casual and hardcore look at it as something to beat, they look at it to find the winning combination that will let them beat the game, the pattern that will get them through the game and make them feel like the best.. sadly thats what breeds the complaints on difficulty, and the stubborness to accept that a mage is more powerfull than a guy with a sword.. lore means nothing to those who see a game as something to beat..

shoulda just removed combat from dragon age then, then we all wouldn't be duped into thinking the combat section had any value.  and all you story lovers coulda had your story.

[spernus]

you can "not consider diablo an rpg" till the cows come home, its classed as an rpg.  and its combat is vastly superior.  I think I might have played jade empire for like 40 minutes, it was almost certainly superior but I suppose it might have gotten broken later in the game.  

dragon age's combat isn't tactical because doing anything tactical is pointless.  the only tactic is nuke everything with mages.  everything else is being intentionally dumb.  that's about as bad as a combat mechanic can get.  and even if that doesn't convince you diablo 2 is almost a decade old and its melee units have vastly vastly superior abilties to the jokes that are warrior/rogue abilities in dragon age.    dragon age warrior and rogue abliities are so awful that there are numerous fourth tier abilities that are actually inferior to auto attacking....and I"m being LITERAL, you should auto attack instead of use them.

That still doesn't really prove your point. Diablo 2 is an action rpg focused on combat and it's also made by Blizzard.The combat of Diablo 2 still hasn't been surpassed and will only be top by Diablo 3.

Otherwise,I disagree with Jade empire having a better system when it was as dumbed down as you can get.You could keep mashing attacks over and over again.Mass effect was a bad third person shooter and you didn't need your team after a certain point in the game. As for Square-Enix games,I would love to hear an explanation on either FF or dragonquest?  

Now Dragon age definitively isn't the best example of a great combat system,but I find it to be a step above Jade empire or the first Mss effect.

Modifié par spernus, 17 novembre 2009 - 08:08 .

[Atrenar]

Schyzm wrote...

FatedHeart wrote...

MW:2 Has a nice story... for the very short time it lasts.. its adrenaline filled fast paced action.. just what the average CoD Player is all after.. its an adrenaline rush, a thrill ride... People play it because they like it.

DA is something to get lost in, its something to sit down at 8am in the morning in a comfy chair, mini fridge stocked up next to you, surround sound on high, tv pulled up right close to you and the chair laid all the way back so all you can see is the screen... and you lose the whole day.
Both cater to two different types of people.. or two different types of gamer personality.. its impossible to compare them against each other.
However.. popularity does tend to rule all media, and sad to say... there wasnt a line of 1500 people at my local asda at 12am release day for DA:O... there was for MW:2... it shows how things are heading.

DA is too much of a misunderstood game.. too many gamers, casual and hardcore look at it as something to beat, they look at it to find the winning combination that will let them beat the game, the pattern that will get them through the game and make them feel like the best.. sadly thats what breeds the complaints on difficulty, and the stubborness to accept that a mage is more powerfull than a guy with a sword.. lore means nothing to those who see a game as something to beat..

shoulda just removed combat from dragon age then, then we all wouldn't be duped into thinking the combat section had any value.  and all you story lovers coulda had your story.

Sorry Schyzm , this isn't an action RPG. You'll just have to sit tight for Diablo 3.
As far as I'm concerned this is one of the best RPGs of all time. Honestly, you kind of come across as someone who had trouble with the game and you are now bashing the combat because of it.... Oh, I know. I know, you beat it on Nightmare without ever dieing.

Modifié par Atrenar, 17 novembre 2009 - 08:28 .

[Jiggasaurus]

That is going to be a long wait! didn't Blizzard just push back Diablo 3 to 2011?

[Schyzm]

Atrenar wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

FatedHeart wrote...

MW:2 Has a nice story... for the very short time it lasts.. its adrenaline filled fast paced action.. just what the average CoD Player is all after.. its an adrenaline rush, a thrill ride... People play it because they like it.

DA is something to get lost in, its something to sit down at 8am in the morning in a comfy chair, mini fridge stocked up next to you, surround sound on high, tv pulled up right close to you and the chair laid all the way back so all you can see is the screen... and you lose the whole day.
Both cater to two different types of people.. or two different types of gamer personality.. its impossible to compare them against each other.
However.. popularity does tend to rule all media, and sad to say... there wasnt a line of 1500 people at my local asda at 12am release day for DA:O... there was for MW:2... it shows how things are heading.

DA is too much of a misunderstood game.. too many gamers, casual and hardcore look at it as something to beat, they look at it to find the winning combination that will let them beat the game, the pattern that will get them through the game and make them feel like the best.. sadly thats what breeds the complaints on difficulty, and the stubborness to accept that a mage is more powerfull than a guy with a sword.. lore means nothing to those who see a game as something to beat..

shoulda just removed combat from dragon age then, then we all wouldn't be duped into thinking the combat section had any value.  and all you story lovers coulda had your story.

Sorry Schyzm , this isn't an action RPG. You'll just have to sit tight for Diablo 3.
As far as I'm concerned this is one of the best RPGs of all time. Honestly, you kind of come across as someone who had trouble with the game and you are now bashing the combat because of it.... Oh, I know. I know, you beat it on Nightmare without ever dieing.

so the fact that its not an action rpg mean the combat has to be trivial and meaningless?  how is that logic?

I breezed through the game on nightmare, I died a few times.  I think I died in the fade once or twice and occasionally I'd be too lazy to pause the game and not notice a buncha mages fireballing my party.  oh and I died in the very beginning probably a few times, though not in the wilds that I remember.  maybe there are more, but # of deaths isn't that meaningful because mostly its just cause I got bored.  but in general nothing was hard, and worse than not being hard, nothing was interesting.  because, again, combat was not balanced so there was no depth.  I'm not even really offended by the difficulty/ease of the game.  that's fine, if there is interesting and deep combat to go along with it.

[Schyzm]

spernus wrote...

you can "not consider diablo an rpg" till the cows come home, its classed as an rpg.  and its combat is vastly superior.  I think I might have played jade empire for like 40 minutes, it was almost certainly superior but I suppose it might have gotten broken later in the game.  

dragon age's combat isn't tactical because doing anything tactical is pointless.  the only tactic is nuke everything with mages.  everything else is being intentionally dumb.  that's about as bad as a combat mechanic can get.  and even if that doesn't convince you diablo 2 is almost a decade old and its melee units have vastly vastly superior abilties to the jokes that are warrior/rogue abilities in dragon age.    dragon age warrior and rogue abliities are so awful that there are numerous fourth tier abilities that are actually inferior to auto attacking....and I"m being LITERAL, you should auto attack instead of use them.

That still doesn't really prove your point. Diablo 2 is an action rpg focused on combat and it's also made by Blizzard.The combat of Diablo 2 still hasn't been surpassed and will only be top by Diablo 3.

Otherwise,I disagree with Jade empire having a better system when it was as dumbed down as you can get.You could keep mashing attacks over and over again.Mass effect was a bad third person shooter and you didn't need your team after a certain point in the game. As for Square-Enix games,I would love to hear an explanation on either FF or dragonquest?  

Now Dragon age definitively isn't the best example of a great combat system,but I find it to be a step above Jade empire or the first Mss effect.

I think there are faults to some extent with all the combat systems.  but you are perhaps not taking into account how flaming trainwreck broken I think dragon age is.  one class has literally all the best abilities, and they cast these abilities from an infinite resource pool.  the other classes are so awful that some of their 4th tier abilities are inferior to auto attacks.  

and if you look at these forums some of the most obvious uses for abilities(notably coc and forcefield) have openly been called exploits.  forcefield your ally? that's an exploit!  well I mean god, how bad of a combat system is that?

[Atrenar]

Schyzm wrote...

so the fact that its not an action rpg mean the combat has to be trivial and meaningless?  how is that logic?

I breezed through the game on nightmare, I died a few times.  I think I died in the fade once or twice and occasionally I'd be too lazy to pause the game and not notice a buncha mages fireballing my party.  oh and I died in the very beginning probably a few times, though not in the wilds that I remember.  maybe there are more, but # of deaths isn't that meaningful because mostly its just cause I got bored.  but in general nothing was hard, and worse than not being hard, nothing was interesting.  because, again, combat was not balanced so there was no depth.  I'm not even really offended by the difficulty/ease of the game.  that's fine, if there is interesting and deep combat to go along with it.

So I guess it comes down to prefrence.  I feel most games out there today are too easy or trivial. Many have a facade of a deep combat system, but in reality are quite shallow or are implemented poorly.
Diablo is not much different in that regard, IMHO. It's fun sure, but not necessarily any more varied or strategic.

I find the combat in DA keeps me on my toes enough to keep me interested. But for me, it really is about experiencing the world and enjoying the story. That's what an RPG is all about.

[toronto13]

Schyzm wrote...
I breezed through the game on nightmare, I died a few times.  I think I died in the fade once or twice and occasionally I'd be too lazy to pause the game and not notice a buncha mages fireballing my party.  oh and I died in the very beginning probably a few times, though not in the wilds that I remember.  maybe there are more, but # of deaths isn't that meaningful because mostly its just cause I got bored.  but in general nothing was hard, and worse than not being hard, nothing was interesting.  because, again, combat was not balanced so there was no depth.  I'm not even really offended by the difficulty/ease of the game.  that's fine, if there is interesting and deep combat to go along with it.

Don't get me wrong here but if you bought this game just for combat in it, then you made a mistake,people that buy BioWare games are the ones who like good mix bettween epic story,fun NPC,great world to explore+combat,and so far pople love it.

[Schyzm]

Atrenar wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

so the fact that its not an action rpg mean the combat has to be trivial and meaningless?  how is that logic?

I breezed through the game on nightmare, I died a few times.  I think I died in the fade once or twice and occasionally I'd be too lazy to pause the game and not notice a buncha mages fireballing my party.  oh and I died in the very beginning probably a few times, though not in the wilds that I remember.  maybe there are more, but # of deaths isn't that meaningful because mostly its just cause I got bored.  but in general nothing was hard, and worse than not being hard, nothing was interesting.  because, again, combat was not balanced so there was no depth.  I'm not even really offended by the difficulty/ease of the game.  that's fine, if there is interesting and deep combat to go along with it.

So I guess it comes down to prefrence.  I feel most games out there today are too easy or trivial. Many have a facade of a deep combat system, but in reality are quite shallow or are implemented poorly.
Diablo is not much different in that regard, IMHO. It's fun sure, but not necessarily any more varied or strategic.

I find the combat in DA keeps me on my toes enough to keep me interested. But for me, it really is about experiencing the world and enjoying the story. That's what an RPG is all about.

I'd like dragon age to be harder, but the difficulty isn't what offends me.  It's the completely broken combat mechanics.  and I don't think the brokenness of the combat mechanics is a matter of preference.  it might be a matter of preference that you don't care about how good the combat mechanics are, or a matter of preference that people that criticize a game you love deserve to burn in eternal flame.  but the actual mechanics. are. very broken.

[Schyzm]

toronto13 wrote...

Schyzm wrote...
I breezed through the game on nightmare, I died a few times.  I think I died in the fade once or twice and occasionally I'd be too lazy to pause the game and not notice a buncha mages fireballing my party.  oh and I died in the very beginning probably a few times, though not in the wilds that I remember.  maybe there are more, but # of deaths isn't that meaningful because mostly its just cause I got bored.  but in general nothing was hard, and worse than not being hard, nothing was interesting.  because, again, combat was not balanced so there was no depth.  I'm not even really offended by the difficulty/ease of the game.  that's fine, if there is interesting and deep combat to go along with it.

Don't get me wrong here but if you bought this game just for combat in it, then you made a mistake,people that buy BioWare games are the ones who like good mix bettween epic story,fun NPC,great world to explore+combat,and so far pople love it.

yes that's exactly what I said.  I only want combat.  I coudln't have possibly said anything different.  thank you for exactly interpreting my post and thus totally not talking past me with useless hyperbole.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

OK look i know no country for old men was greatly acclaimed but come on what was the point are you guys saying you want to pay 20 $ to see a movie with no climax all your life

are you saying you wish star wars never ended with the death star destroyed

are u saying rocky should have ended BEFORE the match started

do people reallly want to see movies that dont end

im not saying no country for old men needed a heappy super ending im just saying it should have ended and it didnt

it was like "hey bad guy got away now tommy lee is talking about a dream he had BAM!!! credits"

seriosly people actully hope for anticlimaxes now days

[TheNecroFiend]

toronto13 wrote...

Schyzm wrote...
I breezed through the game on nightmare, I died a few times.  I think I died in the fade once or twice and occasionally I'd be too lazy to pause the game and not notice a buncha mages fireballing my party.  oh and I died in the very beginning probably a few times, though not in the wilds that I remember.  maybe there are more, but # of deaths isn't that meaningful because mostly its just cause I got bored.  but in general nothing was hard, and worse than not being hard, nothing was interesting.  because, again, combat was not balanced so there was no depth.  I'm not even really offended by the difficulty/ease of the game.  that's fine, if there is interesting and deep combat to go along with it.

Don't get me wrong here but if you bought this game just for combat in it, then you made a mistake,people that buy BioWare games are the ones who like good mix bettween epic story,fun NPC,great world to explore+combat,and so far pople love it.

I'm sorry but any RPG is going to spend  the bulk of it's time in combat mode. The combat system is the most important part of a videogame. Bioware is no expection. If Dragon Age had used some crap JRPG setup with everyone lineing up on one side of the screen waiting to attack I would not have bought it, regardless of how rich the lore or good the story was. Of course Bioware avoids such dated mechanics which is why I buy their games. That being said the guy complaining about the game sounds like the type that spams forcefield + taunt + AoE's and then complains about it being to easy.

[BrunoBolderfist]

Just outta curiosity, me and a friend beat CoD:MW2 yesterday while waiting for his wife to tuck the baby in....can anyone tell me its storyline





Really, if I'm going to spend 50 dollars or so on a few hours of gratification...well, lets keep this PG...

[toronto13]

TheNecroFiend wrote...
I'm sorry but any RPG is going to spend  the bulk of it's time in combat mode. The combat system is the most important part of a videogame. Bioware is no expection. If Dragon Age had used some crap JRPG setup with everyone lineing up on one side of the screen waiting to attack I would not have bought it, regardless of how rich the lore or good the story was. Of course Bioware avoids such dated mechanics which is why I buy their games. That being said the guy complaining about the game sounds like the type that spams forcefield + taunt + AoE's and then complains about it being to easy.

 
For me personally,this is the best RPG out there,before(for me again)that was KOTOR......several years ago a friend of mine bought me BG2 and Diablo 2(he said that i have strange taste for games and that those two are what i like),with the BG2 was love on first sight because there was more than click,click and click some more,with the Diablo 2 on the other hand was totally different,I hate it,they are both considered for RPG but in reality they are quite different(for me again).My opinion is that  he wanted something more among the lines of Diablo,but games by BioWare have soul among every thing else(Thank god for that).In the end,if you ask me combat in DAO is perfect,but then again I love Scarlet Johanson and he maybe likes Eva Mendes let's say. 

[Dr3xx]

DA:O Deserves GOTY by a fair margin... however, MW2 will win it hands down. Shooters arent creative at all, there's nothing great about them... but alas, they are fun. Frat boys wont sit around playing DA:O... but they will sit around on MW2.

[Inhuman one]

erhm pretty much any game surpassed Diablo 2 regarding combat. it looks terrible and is simple hack and slash. Neverwinter Nights has far superiour animations for example despite a lack of melee moves.



Dragon Age has improved melee combat quite a bit with all kinds of moves, but still its missing something. There just is not enough for warriors to invest in after they maxed out their chosen fighting style. There should be more generic abilities that apply to all weapons, or an extra line of skills for each fighting style.



Like an overhead cleave for two handed swords. a powerfull attack that would do good damage and knock down the enemy as well.



But, I also think that warriors should have a back up weapon, some throwing knives or axes for close range. They could only use a few but it could be a good way to make them more versatile.

[Pyrofoxable]

Agreed but who cares? Game of the year is always 'Most popular game of the year'. I'm sure Dragon Age will get plenty of Best RPG awards though.

[LyonVanguard]

Both MW2 and Uncharted 2 are deserving games. DAO probably will win RPG of the year (if there is such a title). However, MW has a huge fanbase and Uncharted 2 is plainly a good game (even though I have not played it).

[Vanilisois]

Games like COD appeal to more casual gamers who just buy consoles for the sole purpose of playing with friends instead of general enjoyment. COD doesn't require long to get used to, it isn't hard to be good at and it doesn't require you to play a few hours(more) to see results. Guess that's why I dislike COD games so much. RPG's normally have a steep learning curve aswell, you cannot just sit down and get the controls / whole game in 5 minutes.

I think Uncharted 2 is a very good game though, I wouldn't put it down there with COD:MW2.

Modifié par Vanilisois, 17 novembre 2009 - 11:17 .

[HighlandBerserkr]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

OK look i know no country for old men was greatly acclaimed but come on what was the point are you guys saying you want to pay 20 $ to see a movie with no climax all your life
are you saying you wish star wars never ended with the death star destroyed
are u saying rocky should have ended BEFORE the match started
do people reallly want to see movies that dont end
im not saying no country for old men needed a heappy super ending im just saying it should have ended and it didnt
it was like "hey bad guy got away now tommy lee is talking about a dream he had BAM!!! credits"
seriosly people actully hope for anticlimaxes now days

Not all movies need to end thusley no, but because this one does doesn't make it bad,  Its Called No Country For Old men BECAUSE its no longer a place for people like Tommy Lee Jones's character and through the film you and HE learn this, Also just because you expect  Josh Brolin's  character to win the day or get killed by Sugar doesnt mean its going to happen, its like say in real life this guy was going to kill you but just before he did he was hit by a bus, thats LIFE! its random, its unpredictable:P