490 réponses à ce sujet

[sympathy4saren]

Dragon Age 2 isn't a hardcore rpg.

I was in the mood for a good rpg I haven't played, and was looking forward to Dragon Age 2. I heard so much bad stuff about it I couldn't invest in it, so I went out and got a game I tried before and didn't like....The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

Best gaming decision I ever made. I LOVE it. I don't know how I didn't play it before. For all its faults, it is one hell of a game and a true hardcore rpg. I'm 70 hours in, level 18 and not anywhere near HALFWAY done. It's is deep and robust.

For story sci-fi and story, I have Mass Effect. For fantasy, I have The Elder Scrolls. There is so much to do, so much meaningful loot, so many side quests, so many things to do that are fun, so much land to explore.

Yeah, it has its faults, but its a 5 year old game and Skyrim will not only improve upon but improve upon all, go way beyond and innovate way beyond. TES is different than DA, sure, but BioWare need to see what Bethesda is doing and put that type of Passion into their fantasy genre. They have ME down, now work on the fantasy.

In fantasy, I want an open world. Two Worlds 2 is more appealing to me than DA2.

[Shadowwot]

I thought DA2 was great and was glad that BioWare is actually trying to do something different.

[Altima Darkspells]

Ottemis wrote...

If a game deviates from an established formula on some parts, it doesn't nessecarily stop being part of the same genre.
We evolve, so do games and the way they are presented, as how each facet is developed.

Yes, which is why shooters are 'evolving' with RPG elements.  I believe one of the developers of Gears of War of all things even said that the future of shooters were RPGs.

However, if a game deviates from an established formula that it no longer resembles the genre it was attempting to imitate, that means it does stop being part of that genre.  That's just how it is.

Unfortunately, BioWare seems to have dropped the 'evolve' part.  Instead of changing parts of games that weren't up to snuff, they simply chuck them out the window.

[AbounI]

KenRed wrote...

Those instances where you find a random piece of garbage and, magically, you receive a new quest telling you exactly who to give the junk to and where they are.......you call that innovation and moving the genre forward?!  How anyone can defend this "quest" design is beyond me.

Sure you're right, but those kind of quest does not belong to the majority.Then, if I have to compare with Origins, I prefer those quest in DA2 than the "gift system" in DAO.Ok, both systems are silly, but speaking in the sacred term of RP,the ones in DA2 have lesser impact than the gift, the only missing thing to make it good/realist is the "identify" skill which could allow to determine who could be the owner of the identified item : if Hawke discover an amulet, with an identify skill, he will know it's an elven creation, that could drive him towards the Dalish.

Please also consider the companions quest.Look at the Sten's one and see how it's a poor and simple system.Here, in DA2, the companions quest are better, they 're more elaborate as a same companion questline have elements all over the game and its 3 chapters.Take a look at Aveline questline.Don't you think it's better than the Sten's one

Why people only see what's wrong, can't you see also what is improved?

[Altima Darkspells]

AbounI wrote...


Please also consider the companions quest.Look at the Sten's one and see how it's a poor and simple system.Here, in DA2, the companions quest are better, they 're more elaborate as a same companion questline have elements all over the game and its 3 chapters.Take a look at Aveline questline.Don't you think it's better than the Sten's one

Why people only see what's wrong, can't you see also what is improved?

Nope, don't think Sten's character quest was better than Aveline's.

Of course, I think Aveline's was worse than, say...Morrigan's or Alistair's.

Sten was a side character that wasn't tied to any specific part of the plot.  A DA2 comparison character would be Fenris, who has the same impact, story-wise, as Sten.  Fenris's personal quest is more or less the same as Sten's--go here, kill that, give them what they want, and so forth.

Sure, it was more elaborate, and that's rather impressive considering all the massive resources that were put into other aspects of the game.  Like level design.

[Ottemis]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

If a game deviates from an established formula on some parts, it doesn't nessecarily stop being part of the same genre.
We evolve, so do games and the way they are presented, as how each facet is developed.

Yes, which is why shooters are 'evolving' with RPG elements.

Much as RPG's are evolving with shooter elements?

Anyways, argument without end, depends which side of the coin you preferr I suppose.
Lets agree to disagree hehe =)

[Haexpane]

tulx wrote...

So many of you here call yourselves hardcore RPG and Bioware fans, you all loved DA:O so much, yet most posts about DA II I see are negative. You should really be THANKFULL for what Bioware is daring to do with such a lucrative franchise as Dragon Age.
The developers are right to push you out of your comfort zone and bring the franchise in another direction, bring it FURTHER. Do you really want this to tur into another CoD where they cough up a more expensive version of the same game each year? Call of Duty Modern Warfare is a great game, it really is, but if you played MW 1, you have absolutely no reason to play MW2 or Balck Ops - it's exactly the same. I played MW1 and MW2, now I can't event tell which episode was from which game - they are so alike.
Do you want the same to happen with Dragon Age? Where there's a bunch of games which all copy the first and milk the same old formula? For how long can you listen to the same song before you start to get sick of it?

As things are now, you have reason to go back and play Origins after you've played Dragon Age II. Because it's DIFFERENT, not just the same game with outdated graphcs and smaller explosions. Enjoy the variaty.

In short - stop whining and start appreciating. There are too few developers who risk to evolve their biggest franchises - don't force Bioware to make cookie-cutter games like Activision does now.

The premise of your rant is that Bioware pushed the DA franchise into *NEW* directions.

This is false. There is not one aspect of DA2 that is *new* .  They took the DAO engine, sped up combat, removed companion customization, and fiddled with the graphics.  The overall design of the game is very much linear and cinematic, exactly what JRPGs have been doing for DECADES.

Making DA2 more like a FInal Fantasy X game is NOT NEW, it's NOT DARING,

It *is* pandering to the FFX/Casual crowd tho.

I don't like pandering.

[King_Friday]

Nobody likes pandering.

I purchased DAII as a fan of Origins, hoping for an improved gameplay with all the excitement and ambience of Origins.  Sadly, I don't know if my love for Origins will carry over if they make a DAIII.  I doubt it's one I'll buy thanks to the rush job on DAII.

Also, did anyone else play a friendly, honest male Hawke?  I ask because I found him monotone which I think made me dislike his character more than I should have, seemed the female voice was a lot better.

Modifié par King_Friday, 06 mai 2011 - 10:13 .

[flexxdk]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Dragon Age 2 isn't a hardcore rpg.

I was in the mood for a good rpg I haven't played, and was looking forward to Dragon Age 2. I heard so much bad stuff about it I couldn't invest in it, so I went out and got a game I tried before and didn't like....The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

Best gaming decision I ever made. I LOVE it. I don't know how I didn't play it before. For all its faults, it is one hell of a game and a true hardcore rpg. I'm 70 hours in, level 18 and not anywhere near HALFWAY done. It's is deep and robust.

For story sci-fi and story, I have Mass Effect. For fantasy, I have The Elder Scrolls. There is so much to do, so much meaningful loot, so many side quests, so many things to do that are fun, so much land to explore.

Yeah, it has its faults, but its a 5 year old game and Skyrim will not only improve upon but improve upon all, go way beyond and innovate way beyond. TES is different than DA, sure, but BioWare need to see what Bethesda is doing and put that type of Passion into their fantasy genre. They have ME down, now work on the fantasy.

In fantasy, I want an open world. Two Worlds 2 is more appealing to me than DA2.

This.

I also discovered Oblivion after DA2. And I'm baffled, just as much as I was when I inserted the DAO disk in my PC and launched the game.

BioWare shouldn't have to re-invent the wheel. They got a success formula. Why change it if it works? Change is only needed when time demands it. And so far, time didn't demand anything at all.

[Realmzmaster]

Actually DA:O is not a hardcore cRPG. No a hard core rpg should have food management, and weather conditions that affect play. A hardcore CRPG has weight restrictions and require memorization of spells for wizards and prays for priestly cast. Hardcore CRPGs like Bards Tale, Wizardry, Ultima 1-9. Might and Magic, and Alternate Reality.
Not the watered down stuff we get now. Where are the games based on the D & D ruleset.
If you or your companions died the survivors had to drag your body to the temple to get resurrected. Hardcore CRPG is like Temple of Elemental Evil with it nice turn based combat and adherence to the D & D 3.5 ruleset.
In todays CRPG with get instant recovery after combat. How is that hardcore? At least NWN, BG had real death. If your main character died it was game over ans reload. If the game had perma death it was die and start a new character. Now that is Hardcore!
Not this DA:O and DA 2 fluff. I like both DA:O and DA 2, but hardcore they are not by my definition.

[xkg]

^ You are joking, right ?
D&D - hardcoe RPG ? what a laugh

You want hardcore RPG with hardcore mechanics try Twilight 2000

[Realmzmaster]

Actually I prefer Runequest. Fantasy Trip is a good one. Steve Jackson's followup GURPS is not bad. I not into sci-fi fantasy so no Twilight 2000.
Actually I was pointing out that some gamers consider games based on D & D 2.0 to be hardcore CRPGS.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Actually DA:O is not a hardcore cRPG. No a hard core rpg should have food management, and weather conditions that affect play. A hardcore CRPG has weight restrictions and require memorization of spells for wizards and prays for priestly cast. Hardcore CRPGs like Bards Tale, Wizardry, Ultima 1-9. Might and Magic, and Alternate Reality.
Not the watered down stuff we get now. Where are the games based on the D & D ruleset.
If you or your companions died the survivors had to drag your body to the temple to get resurrected. Hardcore CRPG is like Temple of Elemental Evil with it nice turn based combat and adherence to the D & D 3.5 ruleset.
In todays CRPG with get instant recovery after combat. How is that hardcore? At least NWN, BG had real death. If your main character died it was game over ans reload. If the game had perma death it was die and start a new character. Now that is Hardcore!
Not this DA:O and DA 2 fluff. I like both DA:O and DA 2, but hardcore they are not by my definition.

Yeah, it's interesting to note what "hardcore" means to different people.  I remember a debate here a few months ago about inventory systems and how DA2 was going to dumb inventory down and make it less realistic.  Apparently, the ability to carry 75 suits of armor around was gritty and realistic.

But I'm an old-school gamer who likes many of the innovations in RPG's.

[xkg]

I'm not saying that D&D or GURPS are bad. They are great RPG systems but they are not "hardcore RPGs" by any means.

Modifié par xkg, 06 mai 2011 - 11:31 .

[neppakyo]

xkg wrote...

I'm not saying that D&D or GURPS are bad. They are great RPG systems but they are not "hardcore RPGs" by any means.

You know whats hardcore RPG?

Programming in Turbo Pascal 

[xkg]

I like "C" better but Assembler is much more hardcore

[neppakyo]

using assembly is akin to jabbing a straw in your eye repeatedly. Beyond hardcore

[DragonRageGT]

Get a "Better Bodies" Mod for Origins and it becomes pretty much a "Hardcore" RPG! *eg* Unfortunately, not even this is possible in DA2!

I really love the game mechanics of the Gothics and Risen. Oblivion and Witcher are cool too!

[Bostur]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Yeah, it's interesting to note what "hardcore" means to different people.  I remember a debate here a few months ago about inventory systems and how DA2 was going to dumb inventory down and make it less realistic.  Apparently, the ability to carry 75 suits of armor around was gritty and realistic.

But I'm an old-school gamer who likes many of the innovations in RPG's.

Indeed. If DAO is hardcore I wonder what a game like Darklands would be:
http://www.mobygames...meShotId,63276/

I remember when games had 300 page manuals.

I like many new innovations as well, but I do miss some of the depth and complexity that was in some of the old games.

[Chromie]

If DaO is hardcore what is Baldur's Gate? Because Origins felt nothing like BG.

[Kilshrek]

Y'all forget, you wake up and you're living a hardcore RPG. No saves, no loads, no checkpoints.

[Bootsykk]

I am honestly disappointed as well, but for radically different reasons.

People seem to have very little ability to stop and actually say what wasn't very good about the game--such as combat that had the potential to be exhilarating and amazing fun throughout, as it was for the first ten seconds, as opposed to a chore of mindlessly button-mashing one's way through waves of enemies plummeting from the sky. Or the fact that for being restricted to such a small area, you don't even see that much of the supposedly-"massive" kirkwall, leading to a game that recycles environments and gives fedex quest a whole new kind of boring. And then finally, the fact that an extremely glitched game was released, one with potentially game-breaking errors.

I really do appreciate what Bioware did in going for another direction. I think it's not only ambitious and admirable, but a step-up in revolutionizing the kinds of games they create. HOWEVER, what saddens me greatly is that they didn't take the time to actually make it worthy in quality of the other games they have made, other than character development and storytelling departments.

[neppakyo]

Kilshrek wrote...

Y'all forget, you wake up and you're living a hardcore RPG. No saves, no loads, no checkpoints.

Yeah. Like me playing Final Fantasy 7 on the PS1 without a memory card.

That was hardcore.

[Realmzmaster]

Bostur wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Yeah, it's interesting to note what "hardcore" means to different people.  I remember a debate here a few months ago about inventory systems and how DA2 was going to dumb inventory down and make it less realistic.  Apparently, the ability to carry 75 suits of armor around was gritty and realistic.

But I'm an old-school gamer who likes many of the innovations in RPG's.

Indeed. If DAO is hardcore I wonder what a game like Darklands would be:
http://www.mobygames...meShotId,63276/

I remember when games had 300 page manuals.

I like many new innovations as well, but I do miss some of the depth and complexity that was in some of the old games.

@Bostur,
I had fogotten about Darklands! Talk about an CRPG with an interesting ending. Yes I remember the 300 page manuals! Because I still own some of them! The manuals where 300 pages because they had to explain the game, the ruleset, classes and all the spells. I remember Ultima IV unique way of creating your character. and the in fact like DA 2 did not focus on saving the world or killing the big bad evil.
Ultima IV was and is a blockbuster.

[Realmzmaster]

neppakyo wrote...

xkg wrote...

I'm not saying that D&D or GURPS are bad. They are great RPG systems but they are not "hardcore RPGs" by any means.

You know whats hardcore RPG?

Programming in Turbo Pascal 

Programming in Turbo Pascal was fun compared to using punch cards for COBOL programs on an IBM 360.