260 réponses à ce sujet

[Phonantiphon]

Alex109222 wrote...

Jim_uk wrote...

I'd turn that around and ask is Dragon Age mature enough for gamers, those who are old enough to buy the game themselves. Huge jugs, exploding enemies and over simplification suggests not.

Well done. I was just about to say that. 

I see nothing wrong with huge jugs and exploding enemies. These are standard fantasy tropes. You're playing a fantasy, get over it.
If you want to get all sniffy and Daily Mail about find something else and stop being so crassly patronising.

[jds1bio]

Grovermancer wrote...

LOL at the childish, condescending OP.

Taking the various faults and deficiencies of this game...  and pretending you're somehow "mature" if you like that.

LOL,  Yeah.  Sure.  Keep telling yourself that.

Well, at least if you've gotten nothing out of this thread, you've gotten some amusement.

I never thought I was being childish, though, by engaging in a discussion with gamers.

[jds1bio]

Aesieru wrote...

You're comparing an RPG to an RTS... don't.

Do you think that under the hood the combat mechanics are so very different?

[Aesieru]

jds1bio wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

You're comparing an RPG to an RTS... don't.

Do you think that under the hood the combat mechanics are so very different?

They are different styles, and the day I see an RTS-RPG is the day I go shoot my computer.

Now, similarities aside, they are TWO DISTINCT GENRES... leave them as such.

In other news, you're beginning to degrade the purpose of this thread and it looks more like your own personal chat room.

[Blacklash93]

jds1bio wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

If we fought the same enemies in the exact same places over and over again, that would get boring.

Same for the environments. DA2 is a videogame meant to entertain and, honestly, romping through the same area again and again with a different name is not entertaining. It's lazy.

It might get boring for some, indeed.  It might be boring for you, and it might be boring for me.  But hasn't gotten boring for chess players and it hasn't gotten boring for Starcraft players.  That's all I'm saying.

And as for romping through the same area again and again with a different name, isn't that what we do with RPG's every time we start a new playthrough?

Holding a video game to the same standards as a board game is a shaky argument at best.

A video game based around adventure and questing meant to be played hours at a time like DA2 should be visually appealing and interesting at every turn. Varied environments are key to that and if you don't have it, people will start to find everything else they are doing redundant and boring.

It bothers most people and we can all agree that the game would certainly be better without it. That's reason enough to regard it as a flaw and bad design for Dragon Age 2.

[Melra]

All who jump into the fray here and get insulted for being called immature, are clearly not mature enough for this game. I am immature brick myself, but I love it.Those ''mature'' ones, should jump down from their high horses, before this conversation can continue in civil manner.

The game may have been simplified, but that doesn't mean anything. Any kid can play these games, only thing that may hold majority of them back, is the language barrier.

If people really think that someone, who has completed and enjoyed Origins, is more likely to be ''mature player'' than the one who completed DA2, then I can only laugh at your foolishness.

Trying to make yourself any more mature looking, than you truly are serves you no purpose. It'll come out eventually, so if you're playing 18+ rated games, just so you can run over to your friends and boast with your ''maturity'', then I can only feel sorry for you.

Just enjoy the game in a way you find most suitable for yourself. Nothing else matters really.

[jds1bio]

Aesieru wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

You're comparing an RPG to an RTS... don't.

Do you think that under the hood the combat mechanics are so very different?

They are different styles, and the day I see an RTS-RPG is the day I go shoot my computer.

Now, similarities aside, they are TWO DISTINCT GENRES... leave them as such.

In other news, you're beginning to degrade the purpose of this thread and it looks more like your own personal chat room.

I guess you didn't like Puzzle Quest either then.

Also, I did create this thead.  I am trying to keep on topic as much as possible.

[Saile]

I actually thought the game was rather morally challenging. It had a lot of flaws, but the morally challenging parts made up for those, to me anyway. I don't think it's a matter of maturity in that case, but rather a matter of... "what is your sense of righteousness." I can imagine the game gets really boring if you have a very straight-forward view on the question at hand, whereas somebody who doesn't have a set in stone opinion about those things might find it a lot more amusing.

It think that it's one of the game's strongest points but at the same time, the weakest. It either really sucks you in, or brushes you off.

Apart from that..the exploding enemies and stuff, it's a little 'childish' but I don't think you should let the visuals entirely ruin the experience for yourself. They're ridiculous, yes, but the moral dilemma in the game CAN be interesting, given it is at all appealing to you. I just think that, as I stated before, it's a bit of a shame to write the game off based on visuals (and I am well aware that is not the only reason, this is only directed at the possible group of people who did this) while the moral dilemma is really quite interesting.

I wish it had been exploited a little more, however, or had been introduced earlier.

[Zealuu]

jds1bio wrote...
Interesting point.  But the chess pieces are labeled as people of varying degress of importance (king, queen, knight, rook, pawn, etc.).  Why would the creators of chess do this if they saw the board merely as a board, and not a metaphor for something else? 

I'm sure someone pointed this out already, but there's 11 pages and you know ... Anyway:

If the various pieces were not assigned different attributes, you'd essentially be playing draught/checkers, not chess. I'm sure you could assign some metaphorical value to chess if you really wanted to, but for all its simplistic elegance it remains an abstraction of strategy - a game, albeit one with an additional layer of complexity as opposed to checkers. With a meagre application of Occam's toiletries, the naming of chess pieces being social commentary is less likely than it being an immediately accessible way of establishing an innate hierarchy of value for the pieces. It simply reflects the social hierarchy of medieval Europe as it was around the time when chess became a household game among the nobility.

[pezit]

jds1bio wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

You're comparing an RPG to an RTS... don't.

Do you think that under the hood the combat mechanics are so very different?

Starcraft and chess are played versus humans, you need to improve and outsmart your opponent. This isn't true in single player games since the AI acts the same every time.

Modifié par pezit, 18 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[Phonantiphon]

Aesieru wrote...

They are different styles, and the day I see an RTS-RPG is the day I go shoot my computer.

Now, similarities aside, they are TWO DISTINCT GENRES... leave them as such.

I din't see any reason why you couldn't have an RTS/RPG crossover to be honest.