260 réponses à ce sujet

[Carlsbad]

Machines Are Us wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

A chess board is not trying to pass itself off as a "world".

As often as I disagree with you, I do agree that this is a solid argument against the repetitive maps and so on.

17thknight wrote...
In terms of Dialogue:
Every game where "I'm Hungry" isn't a response to someone telling you they love you.
Every game where you can choose a response longer than 3 words.

It
isn't the only response, it is meant for sarcastic bastards. If you
don't want to say it you don't have to. Having humour (even if it is
somewhat childish) does not stop a game from being mature.

The
responses themselves aren't three words long, have you played the game
or are you going off of that one screenshot which showed the dialogue
you are referring to? The actual responses are as long, if not longer
than those in other RPG's.

First off, yes it does. A serious drama can be witty in other ways than sarcasm. The writers' childish angle on all of the dialogue completely ruins it.

And second, if a response can be summed up in three words, then yes, the dialogue might as well be as utilitarian as a simple three word response.

[Aesieru]

Carlsbad wrote...

Machines Are Us wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

A chess board is not trying to pass itself off as a "world".

As often as I disagree with you, I do agree that this is a solid argument against the repetitive maps and so on.

17thknight wrote...
In terms of Dialogue:
Every game where "I'm Hungry" isn't a response to someone telling you they love you.
Every game where you can choose a response longer than 3 words.

It
isn't the only response, it is meant for sarcastic bastards. If you
don't want to say it you don't have to. Having humour (even if it is
somewhat childish) does not stop a game from being mature.

The
responses themselves aren't three words long, have you played the game
or are you going off of that one screenshot which showed the dialogue
you are referring to? The actual responses are as long, if not longer
than those in other RPG's.

First off, yes it does. A serious drama can be witty in other ways than sarcasm. The writers' childish angle on all of the dialogue completely ruins it.

And second, if a response can be summed up in three words, then yes, the dialogue might as well be as utilitarian as a simple three word response.

The mods are on break, as I've reported you each time you break the code of conduct (harassment, spam, flooding, flame posts) and they do nothing.

La sigh...

No one really wants you in this thread, just go somewhere else please.

[17thknight]

Machines Are Us wrote...

It
isn't the only response, it is meant for sarcastic bastards. If you
don't want to say it you don't have to. Having humour (even if it is
somewhat childish) does not stop a game from being mature.

Having something that is "childish" in the game, as you so rightly call much of that dialogue, is the antithesis of maturity.

If you think this game has a lot of responses and writing, I suggest you play some Planescape.

Aesieru wrote...

The mods are on break, as I've reported
you each time you break the code of conduct (harassment, spam, flooding,
flame posts) and they do nothing.

La sigh...

No one really wants you in this thread, just go somewhere else please.

What possible purpose does your post serve other than childish flaming and calling attention to yourself? If you want to go "Nyah nyah I tattled on you!" then feel free to do it via pm.

Modifié par 17thknight, 17 mars 2011 - 07:03 .

[Il Divo]

Aesieru wrote...

Ultimate good is essentially you save everyone.

I always try to do that but it's not all that realistic and while I'd be angry I couldn't save everyone (boom boom explode mentality of our generation coming back into play) I'd also think a lot more seriously about it if I couldn't... some times I even read spoilers or strategy guides just so I know I can make that "ultimate good" option.

I classify things as this:

Ultimate good - everything has the best possible good ending.

Best choices - every choice is the best for the world you're in; example being that Bhelen rules the Dwarves, but he's not "Ultimate Good", but he's the better choice in a stability and story sense.

Evil - being an evil person simply for your own sake and choices reflect that.

Good - choices ended up in a relatively good state and you did the best you could for each action but some people may have died in the end... the good "choice" usually has some sacrifice.

Basic - things happened and they worked in the end somehow... and the big quest was completed.

---

Those are the mindsets I see in games and the choices usually reflect those.

If the ultimate good option was removed... well then I would be somewhat upset but probably have to do a lot more long-term thinking.

The ultimate good occurs because you can save everyone, pretty much.

The werewolves and redcliffe kid are prime examples of that.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I can always appreciate Bioware giving us more choices; the ultimate good option adds an extra dynamic to role-playing.

The problem I have is that it simultaneously makes moral dilemmas difficult to put into practice. If, for example, I know that I can always achieve the 'ultimate good', I am no longer faced with a dilemma.

Ex: Imagine the Virmire sequence in Mass Effect if I had the ability to save both Ashley/Kaidan. What I am experiencing is no longer a thought experiment, but is limited to a role-playing issue. Do I care enough about my squad to help them all?  

While that is still terrific (we are playing an rpg after all), I feel that this limits what we can learn from the experience.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 mars 2011 - 07:04 .

[yellow cake]

[quote]jds1bio wrote...

[/quote]

Movies ramp up language and gore for the same reasons, and get rated similary, and oh guess what young Tommy just downloaded it on Netflix and thinks the boobs and blood are funny.  No surprises there.

Your point about waiting three years or more for the game is interesting.  What if the game had come a year from now, but it was exactly the SAME?  Or worse, what if the game came out two years later, and one of your buddies died before he got the chance to play the game, and after playing the game you realize that he would have really liked the game?  The people who write off the game as a rush-job might feel differently then.  Of course, that depends on their maturity level, which is part of the topic of this thread.

[/quote]

if da:2 took 2-3 years to make and was the same i would lose all faith in the da team of bioware and never purchase a thing they made agian. and having a buddy die and realizing he would like the game has nothing to do with the fact of if a game is good or not..and if it is a rush job well then its a rush job wouldn't change how anyone felt if someone died before they got to play it..well shouldn't imo



super mario rpg > all

[Carlsbad]

Aesieru wrote...

The mods are on break, as I've reported you each time you break the code of conduct (harassment, spam, flooding, flame posts) and they do nothing.

La sigh...

No one really wants you in this thread, just go somewhere else please.

La sigh? That's not a thing.

[Aesieru]

Il Divo wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Ultimate good is essentially you save everyone.

*Shortened*

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I can always appreciate Bioware giving us more choices; the ultimate good option adds an extra dynamic to role-playing.

The problem I have is that it simultaneously makes moral dilemmas difficult to put into practice. If, for example, I know that I can always achieve the 'ultimate good', I am no longer faced with a dilemma.

Ex: Imagine the Virmire sequence in Mass Effect if I had the ability to save both Ashley/Kaidan. What I am experiencing is no longer a thought experiment, but is limited to a role-playing issue. Do I care enough about my squad to help them all?  

Exactly, my games pretty much become more a quest of how to find that ultimate good option and if it's there, I usually always do that... I'm not good at pretending to be evil.

[K12aze]

A nice chess set can cost more than $60 per piece (starwars set ftw) but the cost is beside the point. The price point for video games has been relatively set for more than 20 years. There is an inherent risk/reward buying at launch and that should not factor in to the discussion at all about maturity.

[jds1bio]

Bio Dome With Pauly Shore wrote...

A chess board doesn't cost 60 dollars to purchase. Christ, chess can be FREE if you have a piece of paper, a pen, and some pennies or something.

The fact is, when people spend their money on a game, they want something that doesn't feel repetitive, or boring, or make them feel like the only progress they're making is on a stat screen. I sometimes like to make my own boards of chess, to make things interesting. I even have 3D chess (a.k.a that weird chess board from Star Trek that nobody besides a few people know how to use), and they all make the game slightly interesting.

With DA2, the story is pretty interesting, and the battles are faster, but it yields to many different consolized tendencies; there's blood everywhere, the game repeats areas ad nauseam, and the actual dialogue (note, not the story) is sometimes very lackluster. Overall, it boils down to this; what mindset will you be in in order to enjoy the game? Overall, DA2 is okay, but it definitely feels like Bioware could have done a LOT more, with both the PC and 360 versions. Hopefully DA3 will fix some of these issues, most notably the combat system (for me, at least, I can't speak for everyone on here).

Are you saying that a gamer's maturity level is irrelevant because the game will insult every gamer's sensibilities at some point (because of one or more of price, story, boobs, blood, repetition, dialogue, etc.)? 

The price of admission to DA2 may (for now) be $60 and learning how to play the game, but the price of admission to chess, to really enjoying chess, is far higher for some people in terms of concentration, thinking, and patience.

[Aesieru]

17thknight wrote...

Machines Are Us wrote...

It
isn't the only response, it is meant for sarcastic bastards. If you
don't want to say it you don't have to. Having humour (even if it is
somewhat childish) does not stop a game from being mature.

Having something that is "childish" in the game, as you so rightly call much of that dialogue, is the antithesis of maturity.

If you think this game has a lot of responses and writing, I suggest you play some Planescape.

Aesieru wrote...

The mods are on break, as I've reported
you each time you break the code of conduct (harassment, spam, flooding,
flame posts) and they do nothing.

La sigh...

No one really wants you in this thread, just go somewhere else please.

What possible purpose does your post serve other than childish flaming and calling attention to yourself? If you want to go "Nyah nyah I tattled on you!" then feel free to do it via pm.

It serves the fact that he's living on borrowed time and that he's not wanted in this thread because of the irritance he's caused others... and that his time would be better suited elsewhere.

In case he didn't already know that.

---

It wasn't a "tattle" thing, and your opinion on it is something I'm going to ignore.

[Carlsbad]

jds1bio wrote...

Bio Dome With Pauly Shore wrote...

A chess board doesn't cost 60 dollars to purchase. Christ, chess can be FREE if you have a piece of paper, a pen, and some pennies or something.

The fact is, when people spend their money on a game, they want something that doesn't feel repetitive, or boring, or make them feel like the only progress they're making is on a stat screen. I sometimes like to make my own boards of chess, to make things interesting. I even have 3D chess (a.k.a that weird chess board from Star Trek that nobody besides a few people know how to use), and they all make the game slightly interesting.

With DA2, the story is pretty interesting, and the battles are faster, but it yields to many different consolized tendencies; there's blood everywhere, the game repeats areas ad nauseam, and the actual dialogue (note, not the story) is sometimes very lackluster. Overall, it boils down to this; what mindset will you be in in order to enjoy the game? Overall, DA2 is okay, but it definitely feels like Bioware could have done a LOT more, with both the PC and 360 versions. Hopefully DA3 will fix some of these issues, most notably the combat system (for me, at least, I can't speak for everyone on here).

Are you saying that a gamer's maturity level is irrelevant because the game will insult every gamer's sensibilities at some point (because of one or more of price, story, boobs, blood, repetition, dialogue, etc.)? 

The price of admission to DA2 may (for now) be $60 and learning how to play the game, but the price of admission to chess, to really enjoying chess, is far higher for some people in terms of concentration, thinking, and patience.

Sixty dollars for a half-baked game is hardly a price of admission that matches its true value.

[jds1bio]

yellow cake wrote...

if da:2 took 2-3 years to make and was the same i would lose all faith in the da team of bioware and never purchase a thing they made agian. and having a buddy die and realizing he would like the game has nothing to do with the fact of if a game is good or not..and if it is a rush job well then its a rush job wouldn't change how anyone felt if someone died before they got to play it..well shouldn't imo
 

So since the game is what it is now, why haven't you lost all faith in BioWare anyway?  What does an extra year or two have to do with it?

[Aesieru]

jds1bio wrote...

yellow cake wrote...

if da:2 took 2-3 years to make and was the same i would lose all faith in the da team of bioware and never purchase a thing they made agian. and having a buddy die and realizing he would like the game has nothing to do with the fact of if a game is good or not..and if it is a rush job well then its a rush job wouldn't change how anyone felt if someone died before they got to play it..well shouldn't imo
 

They had extra time for quality, if they did and still didn't use it or make it of worthwhile quality or worthwhile of the BioWare name in terms of RPG quality, then it would be a faith-loss move.
So since the game is what it is now, why haven't you lost all faith in BioWare anyway?  What does an extra year or two have to do with it?

Modifié par Aesieru, 17 mars 2011 - 07:09 .

[ronaldmonster]

jds1bio wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

If players need to experience a loss in their own lives to connect with the characters then the story and/or characters are poorly written. It's great that the game felt deep to you, but it has nothing to do with maturity.

They don't need to experience loss (nor would I want them to), all I said was that anyone who has that experience could connect with the characters.  But maturity is partly about understanding people, to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and feel what they feel.  It's easier to do this if you've already "been there".

You're possibly the most clever troll I've ever seen- great job!

I'm sorry but the writing here is absolutely ****** poor and more than half the dialog and cut-scenes had me in tears. How anyone could walk away with the impression of this being anything else than a ****** poor hack and slash and even worse dialog is beyond me.

Remember when Aveline stabbed her husband in the start of the game? Remember when there was no blood, his armor was still intact and the camera panned out while every one walked away? That was so horrendous that I called my roomate over to watch it while we laughed our asses off.

For a game the values presentation over proper storytelling and writing I'm amazed they actually went trough with it. I finished the deep roads and haven't touched the game in almost a week. There is little to no character customization, the writing is terrible, the one town you're in is boring, the sidequest suck and the graphics in combination with the art direction are a gigantic step down from Origins.

I loved Origins as it was truly the first REAL RPG we've had this generation. I had my doubts about a quick sequel, sure, but look at the time frame between between both Baldurs Gate games. Dragon Age 2 could have been a fantastic sequel, but it wasn't. They streamlined the combat, made the presentation the main draw instead of a cohesive story and caved into the same crowd that turned Mass Effect into Gears of War.

[yellow cake]

i have a chess board that cost way over $60

[darkrose]

Aesieru wrote...I was more indicating the Templar vs Mage thing was a bit more mature, even in the journal entries, in the Dragon Age: Origins game, as opposed to Dragon Age 2.
I thought a few of the ideas were darker, but there was always the over-arching "ultimate good" option, like with the ability to sidestep the sacrifice for the kid's survival in Redcliffe, which meant you had to go to another main-quest area and stay along a certain line, or the werewolves.

Some of the decisions were about finding the "third way", but even with those, you had to choose a specific set of responses. If you told Jowan to run and never come back, and don't have Morrigan with you, then you have no choice but to kill Connor. The werewolves....that was a much harder choice for me playing a elf than a human, especially my Tabris, whose initial reaction to learning why Zathrian had invoked the curse was, "Kill all the shems and let the Maker sort them out." Only after she'd really thought about it did she realize that Zathrian was what she could be, and she didn't like that idea. In the end, she still wasn't sure that she did the right thing by letting a bunch of murdering werewolves go back to being shems, and probably go back to murdering and raping because that's what they do.

In DA2, the end comes down to a binary--Templars or Mages?--and because of the way you've got plenty of examples of both sides behaving badly, they're almost exactly equally weighted. And because of the narrative conceit, you know that whichever you you choose, the result will be the same: Thedas degenerating into chaos. 
Origins actually has two decision points--and depending on gender and origin, three--which both narrow down the possibilities at the end. For any given run, there are three possible final game conclusions: Dark Ritual, sacrifice the other Warden, and sacrifice yourself. The Dark Ritual choice is a big question mark; you suspect it'll come back to bite you, but nothing is certain.

I don't think either is more or less mature. I think it comes back to the nature of the games being different, at least for me. Origins was a story that I played out, and my choices shaped the outcome. In DA2, the story's already been told. Many of the important moments have no choice involved, and in the end, regardless of my choice, there's only one ultimate outcome. I prefer the first style, but YMMV.

Modifié par darkrose, 17 mars 2011 - 07:14 .

[jds1bio]

Carlsbad wrote...

And second, if a response can be summed up in three words, then yes, the dialogue might as well be as utilitarian as a simple three word response.

Unless it reveals something interesting about a character, or something that we didn't know before.

[Romantiq]

Some are definitely not thats for true.

[Carlsbad]

jds1bio wrote...

Carlsbad wrote...

And second, if a response can be summed up in three words, then yes, the dialogue might as well be as utilitarian as a simple three word response.

Unless it reveals something interesting about a character, or something that we didn't know before.

Ooh, another scene where someone stands four paces from you and spits a few lines of backstory. Fascinating.

Yeah, nope. I'd much rather it do something like this:

That's how you do ****ing backstory.

Modifié par Carlsbad, 17 mars 2011 - 07:13 .

[aries1001]

Complaints seem to be made about the re-used art assets of the game, DA2. However, in The Witcher
art asserts were also re-used a lot. I had a lof of fun.... going to the Swamp in The Witcher. The Swamp was used very much in The Witcher as background for quests. Maybe people really need more quests and variation in the quests in DA2....

[Pedrak]

jds1bio wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

"Well, consider a different game for a moment, like chess.  Do chess players complain about chess because it's the same board over and over?  Or that the opening moves are always the same ones?  Or that the chess pieces are always coming from the same place?  Or that the game doesn't allow them to plan ahead as easily as they did with the last game (checkers)?  No.  Chess players allow their maturity to guide them to discover the grand depth of the game locked inside an an 8x8 square."

Except that the pleasure of chess comes from its tactical core, which allows for both creativity and rigorous logic to be used - and any chess player who sees his adversary's pawns pop up of nowhere on the board is going to be rather annoyed.

I'm no chess grandmaster, and I've won a game or two of chess in my time, but I've also seen chess pieces come out of nowhere and check or checkmate me.  And I was annoyed, especially because they were right in front of me the entire time.

Sorry, but that doesn't really work.  If you don't see the pieces in a chess game, you've made a tactical mistake. If you don't see them in a video game because a (IMHO awful) design choice of the combat is making them spawn out of thin air, it's another matter altogether.

[yellow cake]

jds1bio wrote...

yellow cake wrote...

if da:2 took 2-3 years to make and was the same i would lose all faith in the da team of bioware and never purchase a thing they made agian. and having a buddy die and realizing he would like the game has nothing to do with the fact of if a game is good or not..and if it is a rush job well then its a rush job wouldn't change how anyone felt if someone died before they got to play it..well shouldn't imo
 

So since the game is what it is now, why haven't you lost all faith in BioWare anyway?  What does an extra year or two have to do with it?

more time = more testing to find bugs. more time to develop every aspect of the game to add more or take out useless aspects. to use the chess reference..play a game of chess without time and play a game in one minute and tell me what is more satisfying. and as stated the da team of bioware not bioware in whole. i have no problems with mass effect 2 but i have minor problems with da:2 that i think are a result of a rush job

[Aesieru]

Carlsbad wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Carlsbad wrote...

And second, if a response can be summed up in three words, then yes, the dialogue might as well be as utilitarian as a simple three word response.

Unless it reveals something interesting about a character, or something that we didn't know before.

Ooh, another scene where someone stands four paces from you and spits a few lines of backstory. Fascinating.

Yeah, nope. I'd much rather it do something like this:

That's how you do ****ing backstory.

Only works in certain circumstances.

You have your views, I have mine.

I would have liked some DIALOG.

[jds1bio]

Carlsbad wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

Carlsbad wrote...

And second, if a response can be summed up in three words, then yes, the dialogue might as well be as utilitarian as a simple three word response.

Unless it reveals something interesting about a character, or something that we didn't know before.

Ooh, another scene where someone stands four paces from you and spits a few lines of backstory. Fascinating.

Yeah, nope. I'd much rather it do something like this:

That's how you do ****ing backstory.

Well, we agree, backstory isn't always interesting, but other things could be.

[Aesieru]

aries1001 wrote...

Complaints seem to be made about the re-used art assets of the game, DA2. However, in The Witcher
art asserts were also re-used a lot. I had a lof of fun.... going to the Swamp in The Witcher. The Swamp was used very much in The Witcher as background for quests. Maybe people really need more quests and variation in the quests in DA2....

I hate the Witcher.