832 réponses à ce sujet

[dheer]

Nozybidaj wrote...
When people pull your finger does something awesome happen?  If not you haven't evolved like DA2 has.

Ha!

Now everyone here is looking at me oddly for laughing.

[abaris]

Meltemph wrote...


Eh, it is all sibjective... Well I don't understand why he want's to or anyone else really, want to use the word evolve.  Words like that are just throwaway's imo.  By evolve he means change...

Its corporate speak: evolve, being excited over (insert empty phrase of your liking), teking opportunity, moving things to the next level ... and blah, blah, blah for all eternity.

A very good indicator, the PR department is pulling his strings.

[Meltemph]

But one of my favorite aspects of DA:O was the combat.

Eh... DAO's gameplay was so slow and obnoxiously easy, was hard to get into after the 1st play-through. Sure you could pause, but the game lacked any real tactical forthought in the fights. It was essentially, "pick the abilities you want to use". On nightmare less then a handful of fights required you to pause more then a couple times.

With DA2, you actually have to keep pausing the game on hard/nightmare if you want to actually do a proficient job in combat. DAO was just to simple in terms of the abilities you used in the fights. I at least felt challenged with DA2.

If you found DAO a challenge, I definitely could understand the appeal to DAO over DA2 for sure.

[Mrbananagrabber]

Trying to make a RPG game with hours and hours of text into a game fit for ritalin-using 12 yrs old kids is like putting make-up on Susanne Boyle and hoping to make money off pimping her.

[cachx]

Il Divo wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...
Granted, if this game oversells DA:O with a 15 months devleopment cycle, it's not the problem of the company but the problem of the retarded fanbase who likes being given **** and like mr Twist, asks for another please?

Here's what it comes down to: CoD can have a year-long development cycle and break 7 million sales. Dragon Age had a 5 year development cycle and broke 3 million (but still an accomplishment). Can Bioware ever out-sell CoD without becoming CoD in the process? At which point, EA loses all marketing of Bioware as 'RPG developers'.

Isn't that why Medal of Honor / Battlefield are for? (competing directly with CoD, I mean).

Everybody assumes that when Bioware says "broad audience", they really mean "CoD audience", and I don't really know why. Maybe "broader audience" just means "broader audience". (Even tough, to me at least, DA2 seemed like a very risky experiment in some ways, not exactly the broader audience kind of game).

And of course we don't really know any of the numbers involved, and most likely never will. For all we know DA2 may be performing according to expectations (financially).

[Meltemph]

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

Trying to make a RPG game with hours and hours of text into a game fit for ritalin-using 12 yrs old kids is like putting make-up on Susanne Boyle and hoping to make money off pimping her.

That was horrible and you should feel bad.   That wasn't even Dane Cook worthy!  

[Viking_Warrior]

MonkeyLungs wrote...
I think that there is honestly too much story and talking and reading in Bioware games to ever make that huge appeal that the most popular shooters have. Also they never have multiplayer. GoW, CoD, Halo would not be neary as popular without the multiplayer.

Agreed. But I don't think the multiplayer part is that important. Ïn example Fallout3 sold very well, if you have guns and can splatter peoples brains all over in a first-person view I think the COD people will love it. I don't think your typical FPS player can ever be attracted to a medieval fantasy setting.

[Mrbananagrabber]

Meltemph wrote...

Mrbananagrabber wrote...

Trying to make a RPG game with hours and hours of text into a game fit for ritalin-using 12 yrs old kids is like putting make-up on Susanne Boyle and hoping to make money off pimping her.

That was horrible and you should feel bad.   That wasn't even Dane Cook worthy!  

Hey I figure, maybe if I'm REALLY bad I'll get a deal to make a stupid movie with Jessica Alba too. I'm aiming for rock-bottom baby.

[MonkeyLungs]

ME has guns and stuff but doesn't sell as well as Fallout 3 or Fallout:NV.

Fallout 3 and Fallout:NV both have plenty of dialogue and talking, story, and reading too but you don't HAVE to engage in them very much to play the game. The game has gameplay that can be engaged in outside of the story, the cutscenes, and the dialogue. Bioware games are striclty focussed on the story. Without engaging in the dialogue and the story you can't do much more in Bioware games. I'm not saying this is bad at all, I'm saying it might be a barrier to entry for some gamers.

[rubydog1]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I think that there is honestly too much story and talking and reading in Bioware games to ever make that huge appeal that the most popular shooters have. Also they never have multiplayer. GoW, CoD, Halo would not be neary as popular without the multiplayer.

BG, BG2, and NWN all had a multiplayer element to them. I remember BG's multiplayer very well because playing a local network game was one method you could use to jerry-rig the game into letting you play a party of six of your own characters.

Multiplayer's disappearance from Bioware games seems to have happened at the same time they started making games for consoles.

[MonkeyLungs]

Yeah I used to make stuff for NWN. Should have said "They never have multiplayer anymore." It hasn't really been that long.

[Meltemph]

NWN was the only one though, where I would say they have a intentional or at least completed multi-player. BG has multi-player, but it was terribly implemented and was mainly used to have a custom party.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

I think another question to ask is not simply: did Origins sell enough? But rather, how well did it sell given the time/money that went into it? That doesn't justify Dragon Age 2 completely, but regardless I think it would be difficult to think that Bioware was going to perform a 5 year development cycle for every Dragon Age game.

DAO didn't have a full team on it right from the beginning, though.  Because it was a new IP, they spent a bunch of time building the setting and fleshing out the lore.  With the groundwork already laid, they should be able t produce new games faster.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Yeah I used to make stuff for NWN. Should have said "They never have multiplayer anymore." It hasn't really been that long.

It's been 9 years.

[Monica83]

Maybe its time to ladiaw to change work...

[1varangian]

RPG genre evolving and whatnot.. it doesn't change the fact that DA2 is simply a more shallow experience than Origins.

I absolutely love both Mass Effect games. But what works for Mass Effect unfortunately does not work for party based tactical RPG's. If they wanted to go that way they should've gone all the way. Control a single character, Witcher style. Focus on the action and make it much more reactive and dynamic than the simplistic hack and slash with one hitter talents that it is.

I consider DA2 a failed experiment that proves that a game can be a good action/RPG game or a good party based tactical RPG, but not both.

Modifié par 1varangian, 21 mars 2011 - 09:36 .

[Meltemph]

DAO didn't have a full team on it right from the beginning, though. Because it was a new IP, they spent a bunch of time building the setting and fleshing out the lore. With the groundwork already laid, they should be able t produce new games faster.

IMO, BW's biggest problem is what their biggest problem to me, has always been. They don't make good engines. They really need to stop trying to make their own, imo. It is probably my biggest critic of BW.

[Meltemph]

I consider DA2 a failed experiment that proves that a game can be a good action/RPG game or a good party based tactical RPG, but not both.

So I'm assuming you think DAO was tactical?

[Mrbananagrabber]

1varangian wrote...

RPG genre evolving and whatnot.. it doesn't change the fact that DA2 is simply a more shallow experience than Origins.

I absolutely love both Mass Effect games. But what works for Mass Effect unfortunately does not work for party based tactical RPG's. If they wanted to go that way they should've gone all the way. Control a single character, Witcher style. Focus on the action and make it much more reactive and dynamic than the simplistic hack and slash with one hitter talents that it is.

I consider DA2 a failed experiment that proves that a game can be a good action/RPG game or a good party based tactical RPG, but not both.

But...but they did that, I wouldn't be able to have pretend sex with my party, boy or girl!

Message to Gaider for DA3: make threesome possible. And what about Dog? Poor guy could use a bone.

[1varangian]

Maybe they should licence the Witcher 2 engine if they want to make DA3 and action/RPG. It looks really good so far.

But since there will already be Witcher 2 and Skyrim I hope they would rather go for another tactical and mature party based RPG. Going back to Origins and building on that gameplay instead of making a mess out of it.

[Tsuga C]

Mrbananagrabber wrote...
Message to Gaider for DA3: make threesome possible. And what about Dog? Poor guy could use a bone.

Dog already has a bone.  He simply lacks somewhere to put it. 

[1varangian]

Meltemph wrote...

I consider DA2 a failed experiment that proves that a game can be a good action/RPG game or a good party based tactical RPG, but not both.

So I'm assuming you think DAO was tactical?

Despite its many flaws, it was on the right track.

[orpheus333]

Oh please First Person Shooters haven't changed since wolfenstien. Get away from the theory crafting and make a great RPG. Its not like the DA team is lacking in talent.

[Meltemph]

1varangian wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I consider DA2 a failed experiment that proves that a game can be a good action/RPG game or a good party based tactical RPG, but not both.

So I'm assuming you think DAO was tactical?

Despite its many flaws, it was on the right track.

How do you figure?  The fights were slow, I grant you that, but the "tactics" required were so shallow it was silly.  While I don't think DA2's combat resembles anything close to perfect, you atleast had to think about what you were going to do next on the harder dificulties(even if you did have to think faster with DA2).  You had, essentially, the exact same strat for any fight you ran into with DAO AND there was near no need to work your party together to pull off any tactical advantage.  It was essetnially CC/DPS them down in order of strength.  


That is not to say DA2 required much in the realm of tactics either, but RPG's FAIL hard at tactics in battle.  I just find it hard to understand how any "gamer"(and by this I mean someone who is familiar with games and their workings) can find RPG's(outside of SRPG's or grid based ones) stratigic/tactical.  The only "tactics" required in DAO was how you built your character.  With DA2 you at least have to pay attention to the statuses and who's abilities are up that corrispond with the current status effects in that fight.  

With DAO you did none of that.  You CC and DPS'd them down and that was the end of it.   And while it is a lot of the same way in DA2, the status effect changes at least on hard/nightmare made you pay attention past the 2nd pause.

I dunno, I just think RPG's(unless they are grid or SRPG's) need to stop trying to be overly tactical/stratigic becasue, imo, they all fail at it.  DA2 seemed to be a little more honest about this failing and just tried to make the fights more dynamic so you had to pay attention more.

Like I said previously.  If you struggled with the combat in DAO I can see the appeal, but if you are any good at the game, I just can't see how people can think Da2 was a step back in terms of stratagy/tactics.  Now if you just straight up don't like the way the combat works, that I can understand, but to think that DAO was more tactical, I just don't get it.

Maybe it is because I love war games so much or what, but I honestly don't get how people get so satisfied with the tactics in these kind of RPG's and hold it up as a "bragging point" for lack of a better word.

[AkiKishi]

Haexpane wrote...

Moving the Dragon Age RPG mechanics closer to Final Fantasy X is not "evolving" it's 'devolving'.

I think they secretly want to make a "JRPG" where they can control the character and the story. I mean considering that what Hawke did amounted to nothing, that would not be a great loss anyway.