221 réponses à ce sujet

[Tekman9]

Mage One wrote...

I largely agree. When I heard the inventory was being removed in ME2, I was very, very happy. I think the present system could use some tweaking, sure, but the fact of the matter was I was tired of sorting through all the junk gear and trying to decide whether five points of damage reduction or 50 points of shield would maximize my defences more efficiently. It was became a mini-game I was forced to play inbetween missions that I had little interest in. What I wanted to do was get on to the next planet, not the next planet I would spend half an hour combing for another medallion, but the next planet with some story, and all that other stuff ultimately was just getting in the way.

This is why I'm opposed to the notion of DA2 being less of an RPG. An RPG to me is in the story, the non-trivial quests, and the choices. (Except in JRPGs. There are no real choices there.) Sticking with my earlier example, inventory management and armor equipping has a place, sure, but it certainly is not central to the experience. Still, I don't think DAII found the right balance. In fact, I think it missed it by quite a bit. I don't see the point of glutting our inventory with junk items that have no description, use or graphic, for example. If that's the plan, I argue they should just give us the money instead. The junk section is still useful for dumping all the items you don't want and selling them all off at once, but the inclusion of "junk" I feel is going for flavor in the wrong ways.

Anyway, thank you for the article. He didn't make the best case for it, but I don't hear enough people addressing the fact that the mechanics required by limited technology have become an intrinsic part of the genre's flavor now that they're technologically obsolete. The recognition of this is one of the reasons I'm as interested in Bioware's new games as I am, because I, like them, imagine there must be a better way. I'm not sure precisely what it is yet. I don't think anyone is, but they're looking for it, and I'm grateful for the fact.

Ok a few things.

To your first paragraph.  No one made you sit around and stew about your equip.  I know EXACTLY what youre saying, and ive always been bad with keepin a clean inventory in any rpg, but that is YOUR choice as the player to get wrapped up in that.  You could easily just ignore it.  By removing inventory stuff from games they are taking that choice away from every user.  A lot of gamers love loot.  Ask blizzard how their money press is working out for them.

To your third paragraph.  He (and for that matter, you) doesn't show any evidence that these systems are 'obsolete' .  I would say that statement is uniformed at the least, igornant at the worst. Can you please expound on that?  

[Goldens]

It's been interesting to start a new DA:O game after almost 2 completed playthroughs of DA2. It feels very quiet and static. Most of the cinematic elements are much improved in DA2 and that's its strongest suit.

If not for its feeble Act-I story structure, inconsistent death retconning, and complete lack of endgame resolution, DA2 would've been what I expected.

I don't like the re-used maps and so on either, but they didn't surprise me as much as the game's story problems. I still enjoy the game for many other things, but I had a higher expectation for a Bioware story than what was delivered.

[Conduit0]

Heh, the title of this thread should have been, "How to make the cRPG crowd froth at the mouth in one easy step."

Honestly I find it hilarious that the cRPG crowd don't realize the truth smacking them in the face. They constantly throw out BG2 and PS:T as the golden standard, yet these games are more than 10 years old, isn't it atleast a little telling that no new golden standard in cRPGs has been set in over 10 years? cRPGs were a niche market a decade ago and an even tinier market today, its just not feasible to put the kind of money into making a top tier game aimed at a declining market. If RPGs are to survive at all, they do infact need to change to meet the demands of an ever changing gaming market, whether you like it or not.

[Tekman9]

eh i dunno man. look at games like disgaea and stuff. they can totally survive as a niche market, like they used to. Its the fact that AAA games cost to make nowadays...

and the reason those cRPGS dont get made anymore like they used to be is because of EQ -> WoW

Modifié par Tekman9, 24 mars 2011 - 07:58 .

[DrGulag]

Honestly I find it hilarious that the cRPG crowd don't realize the truth smacking them in the face. They constantly throw out BG2 and PS:T as the golden standard, yet these games are more than 10 years old, isn't it atleast a little telling that no new golden standard in cRPGs has been set in over 10 years? cRPGs were a niche market a decade ago and an even tinier market today, its just not feasible to put the kind of money into making a top tier game aimed at a declining market. If RPGs are to survive at all, they do infact need to change to meet the demands of an ever changing gaming market, whether you like it or not.

Not feasible? How many copies did Dragon Age Origins sell? A lot.

There is always going to be a market for people who prefer old-school mechanics instead of just mashing one button to see awesome explosions. Actually it's a safer bet to create a product for loyal customers. Bioware is not going to outsell Call of Duty.

JRPG's. I dont recall companies going under for creating those games. Aren't they still sticking with the same formula and doing rather well? 

Modifié par DrGulag, 24 mars 2011 - 08:08 .

[Tekman9]

wait, you can button mash to see ******?


edit: haha that guy above me edited his post so now this makes no sense but im leaving it =P

Modifié par Tekman9, 24 mars 2011 - 08:08 .

[Dan UK]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

I am continually mystified that people keep trying to use the "story' of DA2 as a positive note. The entire narrative structure is inconsistent, repetitive, and one -dimensional. Bioware's choice to work on a framed narrative was an interesting one, and I did in fact enjoy much of the dialog and stylized cut scenes during that part, but unfortunately the frame seems to have become a running joke, with every inconsistency blamed on Varric's recollection or exaggeration. In addition, while I am generally against the single, pre-chosen voiced protagonist, I was willing to give DA2 a shot (I have played both ME's but they are like junk food, and I was hoping that the DA series might stay up to the standards of fine dining, but I suppose more people eat at McDonald's than at a 5 star restaurant), but unfortunately I felt that most of my characters development was going on during these cut scenes, where I had no input.

The NPCs reaction to the Hawke seem, at least to me, to have no basis in any sort of rational structure. You save them, they love you, they give you money, they try to kill you. Also, Hawke's psychic ability to locate the owners of random junk that he finds is amazing to say the least, why doesn't my PC just stop all this dangerous adventure and hire himself out as a finder and returner of lost items? My companions stories range from mildly compelling to banal, my interaction with them barely advances the plot at all. While DAO most of my companions annoyed me from time to time, except for Varric and Aveline, I literally wanted to set each and every one of them on fire.

EDIT - Also, how can this be a personal story? I don't get to live most of my life as the PC, I have no connection to the people around me, and while my social standing ostensibly changes, nothing in PC's life is substantionalably altered over the course of 7 years.

My actions in each act or inexplicable at best, and utterly insane at the worst. My actual trip to the Deep Roads needlessly occurs, only to introduce an completely absurd plot-twist that would make M. Night ashamed. I was not actually sure what I was doing in Act 2 at first or why I would do it instead of retiring out to the country in same estate, except the country side is endlessly repetitive and replete with Quanari and Human bandits who just seem to hang-out. Again, a problem is presented that I would only be tangentially interested in and I am given an over-complicated set of tools to resolve it.

The major conflict at the end of the game is, I think, the worst part of it. Bioware in the past is usually more sensitive in their treatment of complex social issues, and I expected something better out of a Canadian based company. And instead we get hyperbolic one-dimesional card-board cut-outs of people. Extremism is embraced and rational thought is thrown out the window, and we are presented with a city that should have torn itself apart long-before we ever arrived because every, single, person in the city is either insanely evil, insanely zealous, or insanely stupid.

 This was a good read, +1

[DrGulag]

wait, you can button mash to see ******?

I was too fast with the edit but maybe if Bioware consults with Team Ninja lol.

[Galad22]

Conduit0 wrote...

Heh, the title of this thread should have been, "How to make the cRPG crowd froth at the mouth in one easy step."

Honestly I find it hilarious that the cRPG crowd don't realize the truth smacking them in the face. They constantly throw out BG2 and PS:T as the golden standard, yet these games are more than 10 years old, isn't it atleast a little telling that no new golden standard in cRPGs has been set in over 10 years? cRPGs were a niche market a decade ago and an even tinier market today, its just not feasible to put the kind of money into making a top tier game aimed at a declining market. If RPGs are to survive at all, they do infact need to change to meet the demands of an ever changing gaming market, whether you like it or not.

Yet how many copies origin sold? How well was it liked?

How about DA2? You think reception for it has been good?

[Conduit0]

Tekman9 wrote...

eh i dunno man. look at games like disgaea and stuff. they can totally survive as a niche market, like they used to. Its the fact that AAA games cost to make nowadays...

and the reason those cRPGS dont get made anymore like they used to be is because of EQ -> WoW

Low budget games much like low budget movies can certainly be made to appeal to niche markets and do well, but you're not going to see AAA titles anymore.

DrGulag wrote...

Not feasible? How many copies did Dragon Age Origins sell? A lot.

There is always going to be a market for people who prefer old-school mechanics instead of just mashing one button to see awesome explosions. Actually it's a safer bet to create a product for loyal customers. Bioware is not going to outsell Call of Duty.

JRPG's. I dont recall companies going under for creating those games. Aren't they still sticking with the same formula and doing rather well? 

Its almost cute how core gamers and fans everywhere greatly over estimate their importance. If developers only ever focused on pleasing their existing fan base they would never grow and would infact slowly decline untill they finally went out of buisness. Yes DA:O did surprisingly well, but you can't assume that everyone who bought DA:O would buy the sequel. Infact a lot of people didn't like DA:O, and had Bioware stuck to making Origins 2 instead of DA2 I suspect the sales figure would have been much lower.

As for JRPGs, yes they've stuck with the same formula and they are suffering for it, JRPGs and Japanese games in general have been on a gradual decline in the western market for years now.

[DrGulag]

Its almost cute how core gamers and fans everywhere greatly over estimate their importance. If developers only ever focused on pleasing their existing fan base they would never grow and would infact slowly decline untill they finally went out of buisness. Yes DA:O did surprisingly well, but you can't assume that everyone who bought DA:O would buy the sequel. Infact a lot of people didn't like DA:O, and had Bioware stuck to making Origins 2 instead of DA2 I suspect the sales figure would have been much lower.

As for JRPGs, yes they've stuck with the same formula and they are suffering for it, JRPGs and Japanese games in general have been on a gradual decline in the western market for years now.

What on earth are you talking about?

Maybe you haven't noticed but many companies have done well financially by designing products for a loyal fanbase.

Is Capcom on the verge of going bankrupt, because Super Street Fighter 4 still has the same core mechanics and movesets from the early 90´s? No, they reinvigorated the whole genre by going back to basics after messing about with all kinds of gimmicks in order to appease the masses.

Or what about real-time strategies like Starcraft? First person shooters? Platformers?

Why was Final Fantasy XIII such a horrible experience? Because they dumbed down the gameplay and removed exploration in order to make it more accessible. Sound familiar?

Modifié par DrGulag, 24 mars 2011 - 08:45 .

[Blue Face Beast]

Considering how much time you have to put on when devising skill systems, combat animations and textures for armors and piece of equipments, it would all go to a total waste if there was not so many battles in the game.

Do not get me wrong, i am a big fan of stories, i like complicated scenarios with hard choices to make that have consequences down the line in the game. After having completely read the DA2 cluebook i am just starting to realize the whole complexity of the Friendship/Rivalry system, of all the sidequests that are linked together and that i missed during my first playthrough. I also realize now that the combat system also open for more customization and possibilities than what i saw only as a hack and slash earlyer.

There is definitely some complexity on every levels in DA2. The fact that so many sidequests can be undertaken in any order alos makes for a less linear game and more a "sandbox" style which i like. During my first playthrough, i completely missed Isabela and after reading the cluebook i noticed how it can change outcomes during Act2. There really are consequences for what you do in the game ( like being friendly with Arishok or not ).

I have to admit it, i did not give the credit this game deserved and was in the bandwagon with those who said it was a bad game. I was wrong. The game is not as bad as some people make it to be.

Of course, the game could have been bigger and more attention could have been given to gear options and travel locations could have been added. But i still think now that it was worth the money i paid it. There is definitely some replay value to the game. And if toolsets ever are released, it will get even better ( like giving bow skills to warriors, adding switch weapon options, armor options for companions, etc.. ). I see lot of potential there.

TLDR version: surprisingly complex elements both in story and combat that are not necessarily revealed at a first glance. Choices do matters and while events are dragging Hawke toward the big showdown, there are indeed multiple outcomes. Game is actually more complex than ME2 and less linear, game is different from DA:O but i like both games. Both have their own good points.

[Conduit0]

DrGulag wrote...

What on earth are you talking about?

Maybe you haven't noticed but many companies have done well financially by designing products for a loyal fanbase.

Is Capcom on the verge of going bankrupt, because Super Street Fighter 4 still has the same core mechanics and movesets from the early 90´s? No, they reinvigorated the whole genre by going back to basics after messing about with all kinds of gimmicks in order to appease the masses.

Or what about real-time strategies like Starcraft? First person shooters? Platformers?

Why was Final Fantasy XIII such a horrible experience? Because they dumbed down the gameplay and removed exploration in order to make it more accessible. Sound familiar?

You do realize that everything you just mentioned by its very nature appeals to the masses? You might as well have thrown Madden in there while you were at it. Theres a huge difference between games that appeal to the general market versus ones that appeal to a niche market.

As for FFXIII, I honestly wonder where people like you come up with this stuff? Do you just pull it out of your arse's as needed? The game was no more "accessible" than any previous FF title and the Director stated he removed exploration because he felt it detracted from the main story. There was no intention to "dumb down the game" to appeal to a larger audiance, thats just your own delusion.

[Tekman9]

regardless of whatever they say over at squareenix, FFXIII was a BAD rpg. Throw on top of that, that it just happens to be part of one of the most venerable RPGs series out there (well, used to be haha) and the expectations that come along with that... Giant failure as a FF game, bad game as a regular RPG.

sort of similar to what a lot of people want to say about DA2...  I wouldnt put DA:O in the same league as final fantasy (origins is like less than 2 years old final fantasy has been an RPG staple for nearly 30 years?), but i definitely think that DA2 is a better game head to head with FFXIII in nearly every aspect.

Modifié par Tekman9, 24 mars 2011 - 09:35 .

[CakesOnAPlane]

I would much rather Bioware take the risk of failure rather than coast along on the same game every release like some big game series we know...

Whether or not DA2 failed is purely opinion (I personally loved it), but surely you can understand their desire to try and develop their series?

[Dan UK]

Yes cakes, hard to disagree with that logic. However I think the critticisms come as a fair few of the changes are percevied as corner cuts that are masked as attempts to try and develop the series.

Modifié par Dan UK, 24 mars 2011 - 09:47 .

[Tekman9]

'develop' is going to catch a lot of flak.

My problem isnt really with bioware, my anger lies with EA until someone shows me different. I dont think the guys over at bioware were really thinking 'hey lets take essentially the 'series' of games that made us and has had fans for nearly 15 years and try to turn around a full fledged sequel in 1 year' There are a bunch of things in this game that SCREAM rushed from the god damned class select screen onward (the text between the different sexes is different for the same class). This is what makes me mad more than something they went for and swung and missed on.

Its not like they stuck their neck out developing this for 3 years. That was the risk they took with DA:O. I almost wanna call this a straight cash grab when i see the companion facebook game trying to get me to buy something for 99 freaking dollars on FACEBOOK, and all the cross promotion. And the fact that they wanted 1million demo downloads for some reason? And the preorder cash grab... But I know that bioware has more integrity than that, at least i hope so.  And I don't think that DA2 is really that bad of a game, its just not what it could be.  Disappointed more than anything...

Modifié par Tekman9, 24 mars 2011 - 09:54 .

[Conduit0]

Tekman9 wrote...

regardless of whatever they say over at squareenix, FFXIII was a BAD rpg. Throw on top of that, that it just happens to be part of one of the most venerable RPGs series out there (well, used to be haha) and the expectations that come along with that... Giant failure as a FF game, bad game as a regular RPG.

sort of similar to what a lot of people want to say about DA2...  I wouldnt put DA:O in the same league as final fantasy (origins is like less than 2 years old final fantasy has been an RPG staple for nearly 30 years?), but i definitely think that DA2 is a better game head to head with FFXIII in nearly every aspect.

Now don't get me wrong, I never said I thought FFXIII was a good game, I was simply pointing out that the idea of FFXIII's design choices were based on appealing to a larger audiance is hyperbole at its best.

[Tekman9]

yeah i just like to rip on FFXIII. thats 60 dollars and 40 hours that ill never get back. I didnt follow the development of FFXIII so i dont know what reasoning they used but the final product..... yuck

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

DariusKalera wrote...

Eventually though, you will still end up doing the same thing that you prefess to abhor.  The mixing and matching "shards" to get the best out of your toon.  What's the difference between a shard that you put into a ring to give you +1 to all attributes and just a ring that does the same thing?

I wouldn't have to loot all the time and I wouldn't have to swap and trade gear around.  Loot and itemization would be more like in Mass Effect 2.  In my perfect world, Hawke would defeat the Dark Wallabee Goddess and get as loot his Terribly Pointy Fangs Of Improper Pronoun Useage.  Which would translate into a different kind of armor becoming available to Hawke at his home base.  I could then swap armor around from given sets, even if it was one time use like runes.

Companions would have different armor upgrades, letting you customize their gear that way.  I'd like to see different upgrade paths for companion gear.  I forget who made that point to me, but I has grown on me. 

It was the same in ME2.  What would you rather have, more ammo or a faster rate of fire, more armor or more life?  You had options for all and which one you pick depended on your playstyle.

DA2 did go way overboard with the loot table, I have never seen so much useless crap in all my years of gaming.  There's only so many +2 mane/stamina rings that I can stand.

I'll high five you here, for sure!  I would like less loot, no more trash loot, but what loot there is become more important.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Check this out on Kotaku.

That pretty much says it all.  DA2 (like ME2) was more focused more on the story side of an RPG than previous DAO/BG/NWN games.  Those games had great story, but loot and gear mechanics chewed away at the tasty part, inflating play times while players went through boring crap to get to the story.

DA2 did skimp a bit on the exploration, there's no way around that, and yeah Kirkwall could have felt more bustling and alive.  But in service of the story, it did a great job.

The trend of "more story, less numbers" is one that must continue.  There's just no reason to play Excel as a video game anymore.

You'd maybe have a point if it wasn't for a ridiculous amount of utterly pointless and tedious filler combat to wade through just to get to the story. Sorry, but the way it is I have to wade through a ton more boring crap than I ever had to before.

And you're never forced to do that number crunching... it's not a MMORPG after all. You can simply do what I do and go for style over substance.

Modifié par Kendaric Varkellen, 24 mars 2011 - 11:26 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

DrGulag wrote...

What on earth are you talking about?

Maybe you haven't noticed but many companies have done well financially by designing products for a loyal fanbase.

[ snips ]

Or what about real-time strategies like Starcraft? First person shooters? Platformers?

RTS games outside of Starcraft are not only already dead as anything but a niche genre, they have already rotted down to bones.  Strike one.  FPS games are moving towards linear action movies, huge departure from the plotless dazzle fests the original gamers played.  Strike two.  I've never even heard of a platformer game.  What sort of game is that?  Strike three. 

SC2, like DA2, has actually added a ton of new elements and done away with the junk from the past.  This makes it better.  Change is good.  DA2 changed the old RPG forumla, and that rawks!

Why was Final Fantasy XIII such a horrible experience? Because they dumbed down the gameplay and removed exploration in order to make it more accessible. Sound familiar?

No, what are you refering to?  Certainly not DA2, which was a damn entertaining romp through the life of a refugee protecting his family.  I thought Formula Fantasy was unpopular because it was the exact same game that has been made, by my count of your Romance Numberals, eighteen times already. 

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Kendaric Varkellen wrote...

You'd maybe have a point if it wasn't for a ridiculous amount of utterly pointless and tedious filler combat to wade through just to get to the story. Sorry, but the way it is I have to wade through a ton more boring crap than I ever had to before.

I agree the waves are an annoyance.  I wish there was less of them... or at least =none= of the night time gang attacks.  I hated those.

And you're never forced to do that number crunching... it's not a MMORPG after all. You can simply do what I do and go for style over substance.

There are plenty of encounters under the old model that would wipe my ass out if I didn't min max.  These days, I don't want to spend my playtime min maxing.  

[Glorfindel709]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Check this out on Kotaku.

That pretty much says it all.  DA2 (like ME2) was more focused more on the story side of an RPG than previous DAO/BG/NWN games.  Those games had great story, but loot and gear mechanics chewed away at the tasty part, inflating play times while players went through boring crap to get to the story.

DA2 did skimp a bit on the exploration, there's no way around that, and yeah Kirkwall could have felt more bustling and alive.  But in service of the story, it did a great job.

The trend of "more story, less numbers" is one that must continue.  There's just no reason to play Excel as a video game anymore.

DA2 was more focused on story. DA2.... and story......




DA2 did not have a story. It had jarring immersion breaking time jumps between loosely or completely unconnected Acts (Act 1 was literally 15-20 hours of picking up a bottle and running to point B to get 50 silver to go on the Deep Roads Quest repeated 100 bloody times) with an apparently obvious big overarching plot of M vs T (three or four lines of dialogue per act before you get to Act 3 does not count as story telling) in which instead of serving a greater purpose, the puppet I was controlling named Gabriel Hawke was ushered between exclamation points to get soveriegns, try to get companions to talk to the character in their companion quests, and watch as wave after wave of ninja soldiers, spiders, darkspawn, and demons/shades popped up out of no where removing any ability to tactically plan a battle at all.

DA2 tried to have what people are calling "a more personal story" with family and everything. And yet there's no real interaction with the family beyond certain quest specific cutscenes. I couldnt find out if Bethany had a secret love of Cheese, or if Carver had any fond memories of Lothering. Those conversation options didnt exist. I was a stranger to those people, and it was a very alienating and imersion breaking feeling to have people talk about a sibling and have to think for a second to remember who that sibling was and why they were supposed to matter. I was more attatched to the Couslands after an hour of playing the Human Noble Origin than I was attached to anyone in the Hawke family after 39 hours of playing that game.

NPCs walked around saying the same one liners for a seven year period. Kirkwall never changed. There was no little Dwarf girl who wanted to abandon her people to pursue her dream of acting. There was no group of mages who believed that through self moderation and purposeful training, they could resist demons and live free of chantry influence. There was no decision I could make that wouldnt lead to the events they wanted to happen.

At least in Dragon Age Origins, I had choices to either do something or not do something, and the events that followed were altered by that. DA2, no matter what you choose, you get to the same point. (and I'm not talking about the Archdemon, I'm talking about just about every other quest option that had a satisfying ending that made me feel like I acoomplished something rather than finding myself asking after beating DA2 "What was the point?")

Modifié par Glorfindel709, 24 mars 2011 - 11:48 .

[DariusKalera]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...

Eventually though, you will still end up doing the same thing that you prefess to abhor.  The mixing and matching "shards" to get the best out of your toon.  What's the difference between a shard that you put into a ring to give you +1 to all attributes and just a ring that does the same thing?

I wouldn't have to loot all the time and I wouldn't have to swap and trade gear around.  Loot and itemization would be more like in Mass Effect 2.  In my perfect world, Hawke would defeat the Dark Wallabee Goddess and get as loot his Terribly Pointy Fangs Of Improper Pronoun Useage.  Which would translate into a different kind of armor becoming available to Hawke at his home base.  I could then swap armor around from given sets, even if it was one time use like runes.

Companions would have different armor upgrades, letting you customize their gear that way.  I'd like to see different upgrade paths for companion gear.  I forget who made that point to me, but I has grown on me. 

It was the same in ME2.  What would you rather have, more ammo or a faster rate of fire, more armor or more life?  You had options for all and which one you pick depended on your playstyle.

DA2 did go way overboard with the loot table, I have never seen so much useless crap in all my years of gaming.  There's only so many +2 mane/stamina rings that I can stand.

I'll high five you here, for sure!  I would like less loot, no more trash loot, but what loot there is become more important.

Ok, I think I get what you are trying to say now and I pretty much agree with you. Less loot but what loot you do find is more meaningful.

However, you will still end up mixing and matching loot in order to optimize the role of your character.  I also believe that loot should be interchangeable inbetween companions and main character. (armors, helms, gauntlets, rings, belts, everything.  If the requirements are met.)  No more fo this "Hawke Only" loot.