832 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Il Divo wrote...
That's a small reason why I enjoyed Origins so much; it's Bioware's most complicated/original combat system rather than a carbon copy.

Agreed. Except the new Origins system was slightly less functional than the D&D systems. And what did they do for DAII? They pared it down! That's like saying "something isn't quite right. Let's hit it with a hammer and see if it gets better."

It worked for ME2 because it stopped trying to be this weird unholy alliance of two contradictory systems and just went mostly shooter with things. It could have gone the other way and taken out third person gun pointing all together and that would have worked just as well, only for the other crowd.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 mars 2011 - 07:33 .

[Meltemph]

Really? This is what you are going with? I'll admit BW (used to) do story telling better but to say Beth's is weak? Really?

I think he was talking about the plot story, not "story telling". Cause Beth has a lot of great stories in their games, but the main plot's in Beth games have been awful(at least in execution and specially compared to the guild and side quest stories).

[Whatever42]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Bethesda games have weak story telling and characters

Really?  This is what you are going with?  I'll admit BW (used to) do story telling better but to say Beth's is weak?  Really? <_<

Yup. Sorry. I love Bethesda games but yup.

Bethesda is all about world building. They create awesome settings but they have weak characters and weak narratives.

[Nozybidaj]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Bethesda games have weak story telling and characters

Really?  This is what you are going with?  I'll admit BW (used to) do story telling better but to say Beth's is weak?  Really? <_<

Yup. Sorry. I love Bethesda games but yup.

Bethesda is all about world building. They create awesome settings but they have weak characters and weak narratives.

You should try playing through the main quests and faction quests some time.  /shrug  It isn't the brilliance of ME1 or DA:O, but it isn't low as ME2 level either.

[Meltemph]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Bethesda games have weak story telling and characters

Really?  This is what you are going with?  I'll admit BW (used to) do story telling better but to say Beth's is weak?  Really? <_<

Yup. Sorry. I love Bethesda games but yup.

Bethesda is all about world building. They create awesome settings but they have weak characters and weak narratives.

But don't you think it is a little to far to say awful "story telling"?  I mean, a lot of their lore/in-game books and side quests tell some pretty good stories, I thought.  They just are pretty bad at main stories.

[Whatever42]

Meltemph wrote...

Really? This is what you are going with? I'll admit BW (used to) do story telling better but to say Beth's is weak? Really?

I think he was talking about the plot story, not "story telling". Cause Beth has a lot of great stories in their games, but the main plot's in Beth games have been awful(at least in execution and specially compared to the guild and side quest stories).

True enough. The plot stories in Bethesda games are cool enough. I loved Morrowind. But the narrative was very weak. But, imho, Bethesda is all about building a very cool world while Bioware is a tight narrative with a few close characters.

I adore Bethesda, I'm honestly not hacking on them.

[Meltemph]

You should try playing through the main quests

Wait... You like Beth's main quests and you think ME2's story was worse? Jeez... I just have a hard time giving ES games much credit in the main story portion.

[AlanC9]

Meltemph, you're right, and I'm sorry I've been participating in that.

The problem is that we keep wobbling between a discussion of what we like in games, a debate where numbers aren't important, and a discussion of what would be a viable business strategy for EA/Bioware, where numbers are important.

But we don't really have the data for the second debate. DA2 won't sell as well as DAO, it seems, but without knowing the costs involved that doesn't tell us anything.

[Il Divo]

Nozybidaj wrote...

You should try playing through the main quests and faction quests some time.  /shrug  It isn't the brilliance of ME1 or DA:O, but it isn't low as ME2 level either.

It's not 'as low'; it's far worse. A game can have a brilliant plot, but terrible story-telling which deals more with presentation. For example, Morrowind's got an incredibly in-depth story to tell, but fails to tell it well by any stretch, partially due to the game's pacing. Sand-box is not very supportive of a focused narrative, which is what Bioware has always provided.  

[Whatever42]

Meltemph wrote...

But don't you think it is a little to far to say awful "story telling"?  I mean, a lot of their lore/in-game books and side quests tell some pretty good stories, I thought.  They just are pretty bad at main stories.

That's world building, imo. I love Morrowind. I love the Fallout world they created. I think the world has depth and detail and cool characters. I just don't think you can interact very deeply with any of it.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 21 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Agreed. Except the new Origins system was slightly less functional than the D&D systems. And what did they do for DAII? They pared it down! That's like saying "something isn't quite right. Let's hit it with a hammer and see if it gets better."

Although I did enjoy DA2's system as well, I agree. It's a simple case of 'it's not broken'. Making Dragon Age 2's combat more gritty did not necessitate the insane combat speed. All they really needed to do was increase the number of execution animations (much like Assassin's Creed II did) and I'm guessing all complaints about DA:O would have vanished entirely.

It worked for ME2 because it stopped trying to be this weird unholy alliance of two contradictory systems and just went mostly shooter with things. It could have gone the other way and taken out third person gun pointing all together and that would have worked just as well, only for the other crowd.

Exactly! I've tried to point this out quite a bit to some. Whichever direction Mass Effect 2 wanted to go, it could not continue to exist as it did. Unholy is the perfect word to describe the rpg/tps blend. The two are in constant conflict. I didn't care whether Mass Effect 2 wanted to be shooter-focused or stats-focused, but choose one and stick to it. Mass Effect 2 chose the former, which has alienated some.

[Nozybidaj]

Meltemph wrote...

Wait... You like Beth's main quests and you think ME2's story was worse? Jeez... I just have a hard time giving ES games much credit in the main story portion.

Yeah, ME2 as a story is pretty bad.  I'd put it on about the same level as a Michael Bay movie.  Even worse if you try and regard it as a sequel to ME1.

The main quests in MW and OB are pretty epic.  They just aren't feed to you on a silver platter in 20 hours like a BW game.  I loves me some (good) BW games, but to say that Beth games have weak stories?  I don't buy that for a second.  Sounds like a BW fanboy'ish remark to me from someone who has never played a Beth game.

If instead you had said "they aren't as good as BW stories" I'd agree. 

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Ok, here is evidence. The mechanics of the mass effect series are very different than a traditional RPG. And yet it has millions of fans. These are not new fans, these are Bioware fans. Yes, not every Bioware fan liked Mass Effect but I think we can safely say that a great many did.

I'd like to point out that a "traditional RPG" seems to be largely defined by the conventions of tabletop RPG's.  With computers available to do more of the heavy lifting, I think some of the tabletop trappings can be safely jettisoned without necessarily compromising the integrity of the genre.

[Meltemph]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

But don't you think it is a little to far to say awful "story telling"?  I mean, a lot of their lore/in-game books and side quests tell some pretty good stories, I thought.  They just are pretty bad at main stories.

That's world building, imo. I love Morrowind. I love the Fallout world they created. I think the world has depth and detail and cool characters. I just don't think you can interact very deeply with any of it.

Well, ya, I agree with you to some degree there, but that is the cost of essentially making an single player MMO.  Hell I argue it is why it sells so well.  Stpry based RPG's just can't compete with that, imo.  It is one of the things that puzzles me about ML's comments, I mean, does he really think that their type of games(and by the I mean DAO/DA2 and its ilk, ME series has the potential to reach  Uncharted/Elder Scroll sales, imo) are ever going to get sales even resembling a Halo/CoD?

I mean if they can spend half a decade making a game(DAO) making it CRPG's dream game, get raving reviews and only hit 3 mil+ in sales?   Does he really think changing the combat around a bit is going to change people's mind?  I mean, at the end of it all, whether you hated DA2 or loved it, it is the same game as DAO only more contemporary and that is a story based RPG.  

I hate to disapoint EA/BW but games like DAO/DA2 are never going to see those numbers.  So, imo, either reduce the cost of the series and pander to the 3-4ish mil that they can probably reach and stop trying to "reach for the stars".  And this is coming from some one who liked DA2 who does not understand the thinking they have about what they expect in terms of global appeal with these types of games.

[MonkeyLungs]

I like the stories as well (Morrowind > Oblivion). The narrative is not as controlled or focussed and this can (for some) hurt the presentation but the stories themselves are very interesting. Morrowind was especially cool and satisfying and I loved peeling back the layers of the story as I explored the awesome open world.

[Lykang]

So if he want for rpg games to evolve, Bioware should have created a new game, not a sequel of Dragon age, because DA1 and DA2 are so different (and DA2 in a wrong way).

[Meltemph]

The main quests in MW and OB are pretty epic.

On paper, yes, in execution, no.

They just aren't feed to you on a silver platter in 20 hours like a BW game.

The only thing ES stories do is rely on you having knowledge of the lore of the world/area. The stories themselves are incredibly weak and relies on everything else they do well.

Sounds like a BW fanboy'ish remark to me from someone who has never played a Beth game.

So your defense is "BW fanboy" I'm not really surprised, coming from you, that, that is the best thing you can say in its defense... but ok. Yes, I am a HUGE BW fanboy who fines nothing wrong with what they do, you caught me.

A good story that has tons of exploration that is never fed to you is Metroid Prime, but ES relies on the rest of it's worlds stories to supplement the main one.

If instead you had said "they aren't as good as BW stories" I'd agree.

They are not as good as most stories. Shivering Isles was so much better then Oblivion or Morrowinds main plot that they are not even close to the same level.

Modifié par Meltemph, 21 mars 2011 - 07:59 .

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

it's not a game without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end

I couldn't disagree more.

Can't believe ML has written something like that.

For example Fallout would be just fine game for me if I would have to keep looking for the water purification gadged thingy without ever being engaged with some World Ending Evil.

[Nozybidaj]

Meltemph wrote...

A good story that has tons of exploration that is never fed to you is Metroid Prime, but ES relies on the rest of it's worlds stories to supplement the main one.

That was my point, they don't hand hold you through the story like a BW game.  /shrug  I suppose in the end I don't really care.  The games and their successes speak for themselves.

[Nathan Redgrave]

There's really no debate to be had here; Bethesda's stories are less interesting purely because of Bethesda's style of RPG. BioWare does the whole plot-based WRPG thing, and Bethesda does the whole sandbox WRPG thing. They both dip into the other's territory at some point or another, but one has a clear focus at one side of the field and the other's mostly focused on the other.

Final note: "worse" does not denote "bad," simply not as interesting or well-executed. As a rule, the more sandboxy a game gets, the harder it is to execute a good central plot, as evidenced (ironically) by DA2, which had a good main plot... but not necessarily a strong one.

[SolitonMan]

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not a sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Well, according to the FAQ on the DA2 web site(http://dragonage.bio...m/da2/info/faq/), it IS a sequel.  How much deeper should a consumer dig than that to get the quick and dirty skinny on the game?

[MonkeyLungs]

Meltemph wrote...

I mean if they can spend half a decade making a game(DAO) making it CRPG's dream game, get raving reviews and only hit 3 mil+ in sales?   Does he really think changing the combat around a bit is going to change people's mind?  I mean, at the end of it all, whether you hated DA2 or loved it, it is the same game as DAO only more contemporary and that is a story based RPG.  

I think this is a good point to get us back on topic. It seems to me that this idea hasn't been explored enough (although you are not the first person I have read voicing this concern).

It really might be that because Bioware's games truly are Story-Playing-Games and the story is so central to the game that maybe it is the way they present their stories and hinge everything in the game around those stories that is determining their place in the market.

And just food for thought: Two World's 1 sold over 3 million copies, seriously (that is across all platforms BTW).

[cachx]

So if he want for rpg games to evolve, Bioware should have created a new game...

Why? So all sequels must be carbon copies now? I thought that was frowned upon. I guess it ties to the whole " damned if you do, damned if you don't " thing discussed earlier in the thread.

So yeah, I pretty much agree with Mike on this one. The "old ways" are not better, they're just old.

[Meltemph]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I mean if they can spend half a decade making a game(DAO) making it CRPG's dream game, get raving reviews and only hit 3 mil+ in sales?   Does he really think changing the combat around a bit is going to change people's mind?  I mean, at the end of it all, whether you hated DA2 or loved it, it is the same game as DAO only more contemporary and that is a story based RPG.  

I think this is a good point to get us back on topic. It seems to me that this idea hasn't been explored enough (although you are not the first person I have read voicing this concern).

It really might be that because Bioware's games truly are Story-Playing-Games and the story is so central to the game that maybe it is the way they present their stories and hinge everything in the game around those stories that is determining their place in the market.

And just food for thought: Two World's 1 sold over 3 million copies, seriously (that is across all platforms BTW).

I think you might kind of be missing my point, even though I agree with what you said.  My point is, unless they move away from what they do so well with games like DAO/DA2, they are going to have to deal with less sales.  So why not just reduce the cost of the game, take a bit more time and use DAO/DA2 to cater to the numbers the can reach.

Sure fine, siwtch it around a little to keep it fresh, but going after a market and numbers that has no proof of it ever getting even AC numbers is just foolish planning, to me.  You wan't the numbers that ES is getting?  Well then you are going to have to figure out how to get the same quality stories that BW does AND at the same time figureout how to get the same amount of detail with the world design and combat that those games have, AND make it cost effective.  Sorry but something has to take a hit and if they have story take a hit then BW loses its edge in what it does so well and if world design/combat takes a hit, well then they are back to where they started.

If BW still wants to take advantage of those 3-4 million people who want the DAO/DA2 type of games, then they are going to have to realize they are not going to get CoD numbers(even resembling it).  If they want to go beyond that, well then they need to just give up trying to to pander to that, essentially gaurenteed base, and go the route of the ME series(which I love as well, btw) and change up your RPG philosophy completely.  At least that is my take on it.

[moilami]

cachx wrote...

So if he want for rpg games to evolve, Bioware should have created a new game...

Why? So all sequels must be carbon copies now? I thought that was frowned upon. I guess it ties to the whole " damned if you do, damned if you don't " thing discussed earlier in the thread.

So yeah, I pretty much agree with Mike on this one. The "old ways" are not better, they're just old.

To say DA2 has evolved is to say I would evolve if I would lose one arm and one leg.