221 réponses à ce sujet

[Dan UK]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...



We've been talking about how no one cares about numbers heavy Dinosaur Games like BG/NWN//Excel anymore

 Realy? Damn I think I missed that meeting...

 Whats the issue with their being both numbers heavy, medium numbers and numbers light RPG's? This seems like a real non-issue to me. Trying to say all games should cater for one audience and never another is just ludicrous... If you dont like numbers, good for you, you have developed a personal taste, your cookie is in the post.

Modifié par Dan UK, 29 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[LocutusX]

There are a ton of awesome games for people who don't like numbers. The Longest Journey and Heavy Rain immediately come to mind. I do love the term "dinosaur gamer" though. It's an alluringly provocative way to entice RPG fans to come onto this thread and bash the OP; perhaps, that's what he's looking for.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dan UK wrote...

 Realy? Damn I think I missed that meeting...

 Whats the issue with their being both numbers heavy, medium numbers and numbers light RPG's? This seems like a real non-issue to me. Trying to say all games should cater for one audience and never another is just ludicrous... If you dont like numbers, good for you, you have developed a personal taste, your cookie is in the post.

I'm talking about what I like.  Pushing numbers and stats into the background and pulling story and choices into the foregrounds = win.  I like that.

Cookies... gold coins... I'll take 'em.  ;)

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

LocutusX wrote...

There are a ton of awesome games for people who don't like numbers. The Longest Journey and Heavy Rain immediately come to mind. I do love the term "dinosaur gamer" though. It's an alluringly provocative way to entice RPG fans to come onto this thread and bash the OP; perhaps, that's what he's looking for.

I prefer the term "generate discussion."   :)

It is a great term through, because I do feel the old way of doing things is spent.  There's a new way (3D, voiced, low gear, cut scene heavy) way to present RPGs -- The Mass Effect 2 model.  The old games were great fun, but their time is over.

[Dan UK]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Dan UK wrote...

 Realy? Damn I think I missed that meeting...

 Whats the issue with their being both numbers heavy, medium numbers and numbers light RPG's? This seems like a real non-issue to me. Trying to say all games should cater for one audience and never another is just ludicrous... If you dont like numbers, good for you, you have developed a personal taste, your cookie is in the post.

I'm talking about what I like.  Pushing numbers and stats into the background and pulling story and choices into the foregrounds = win.  I like that.

Cookies... gold coins... I'll take 'em. 

Ok... So try and gear your purchases towards games that fit that description?

Personaly I prefer crunchy peanut butter. I think smooth can be a bit boring and I like the crunch it gives my sandwiches. Admittedly sometimes it can cause bits of solid peanut to get stuck in your teeth, but I feel the pros of taste and texture outweigh this con. Do I care if other people like smooth? No. Do I think everyone should buy cruchy? No. Will I start a thread about it....maybe....ok, no.

Modifié par Dan UK, 29 mars 2011 - 05:52 .

[Pandaman102]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Yes, you can say the exact same thing.  No matter what you do in the DAO examples you made, you get the exact same out come.  No matter what you do to Anders/Leandra/Qunari (antagonistic, friendly, indifferent), you get the exact same outcome.  So yes, you can say the exact same thing about DA2 that you said about DAO.  :D:D

So you're seriously trying to argue that:

You can let Redcliffe burn, knife Jowan, and kill the Earl's son.
You can save Redcliffe (and all the little subplots related to saving Redcliffe), spare Jowan, sacrifice the Erlessa, and sell the Earl's son's soul to a demon.
You can save Redcliffe (and all the little subplots related to saving Redcliffe), spare Jowan,  spare the Erlessa, and save the Earl's son.

Is the same as (using the least spoilerish example):

You were nice to Anders and he did <inevitable thing spoiler>, so you <one of three options>.
You ignored Anders and he did <inevitable thing spoiler>, so you <one of three options>.
You were mean to Anders and he did <inevitable thing spoiler>, so you <one of three options>.

Simply because they both have fixed outcomes? The former has choices with consequences that reflect in Redcliffe's state for the rest of the game, the latter has one choice at the end which determines who stays in your party, your attitude toward Anders in inconsequential because he'll always do what he does and you cannot convince him to "fix" things afterward. The only consequence of your attitude toward Anders is his change in clothes.

The argument was DA:O did a good job disguising the railroading while DA2 didn't bother, which is disappointing because shifting the focus from a nation to a single city (and from BEG-slaying-hero-of-the-world to an individual fulfilling personal needs) should have brought out more detail and more "little" options (that wouldn't need to be exported to DA3 but would have helped made each playthrough feel unique), not less.

Modifié par Pandaman102, 31 mars 2011 - 03:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

It's a trade off and an improvement.

It's certainly a trade-off.  Whether its an improvement has yet to be established.

Here, you're making a value-judgment.  That can't reasonably persuade anyone.

Conversation in DAO took the talk on wild and spazmodic paths.  You could easily flirt with a character with no intention of doing so.

No, you couldn't.  Sometimes the NPCs would respond as if you had, but that doesn't change your character's behaviour.

Mass Effect and DA2 refine the poor mechanics of the Dinosaur Games into something that gives the player less broad options, but gives the player a more control of where the character they are guiding does go.

The paraphrase system completely eliminates any fine control of the character by the player.  Broad options are now all that's available.

[NKKKK]

Sylvius should be hired by Bioware, in fact Sylvius should replace Mike Laidlaw.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I'm sure you're perfectly capable of determining what is wheat and what is chaff.  We all are.  The time we spend deciding what is the best gear for our character should be minimized so we can get back to the game.  [/quote]
Here you're making the implicit assertion that inventory management isn't part of "the game".

Why?  Based on what do you hold that opinion?
[quote]ZombiePowered wrote...

What about story and characters? You could make Wynne a blood mage in Origins. That makes no sense. None at all.[/quote]
If it didn't make sense for you, it is because you didn't make it make sense.  If you're given control over the characters, then it is up to you to make decisions that suit them (and where the game doesn't fill in all the blanks for you, you need to fill them in yourself - otherwise you're not playing the characters in a coherent manner).
[quote]There needs to be consistency in the characters themselves.[/quote]
I agree, but that consistency need not extend from one playthrough to the next.  Implicit content can change between games, and between players.  In your game Wynne might hate Blood Magic, but in mine she might just
say she does (as those remarks of hers are explicit content), but really she's a big hypocrite.
[quote]The combat and choices in speccing for combat are just a vessel for telling a story.[/quote]
The "combat and choices in speccing for combat" are part of the story.  And you're the one telling it.
[quote]Yes, that vessel should rock and you should get to decorate it and drive it how you want, but it needs to match up with the story. In Origins I didn't like that I felt compelled to use my companions specialization points on specializations that made no sense for the to have. DA:O tried to make it work by "unlocking" specializations with books or having characters 'teach' your companions how to do it, but why on earth was I making dictatorial decisions on how my companions should fight?[/quote]
Because they weren't your companions.  They were the Warden's companions.  You are not the Warden.  You are the player, and you don't exist in the game's reality.  The companions were making those decisions themselves, presumably for reasons that made sense to them, but you (the player) got to decide what those choices
were.

You only hold the position you do because you're wed to the idea that you are somehow represented in the game by the PC - that's he's your avatar rather than a complete character i his own right (just like all of the other characters, including the companions).
[quote]They have their own personalities and preferences and morals.[/quote]
Yes they do.  So does the Warden.  None of them are you.
[quote]If they don't want to use blood magic or drink dragon blood then they shouldn't have to.[/quote]
I agree.  Furthermore, I would argue that if they don't want to use blood magic of drink dragon blood then they won't.  Therefore, when they do use blood magic or drink dragon blood it is because they wanted to do that very thing.  That you don't understand why that's the case is your failing, not the game's.
[quote]TJSolo wrote...

A: "Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun." Yaron Jacobs.[/quote]
Yaron is wrong about that.  Perfect inner logic is what makes the game fun.
[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Please stay on topic.  We've been talking about how no one cares about numbers heavy Dinosaur Games
like BG/NWN//Excel anymore[/quote]
No, you've been talking about that.  Or rather, you've been making baseless assertions in that general direction and failing utterly to back them up.

This isn't a high school debate team where speaking loudly and with confidence wins you any points.
[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I think a lot of the Dinosaur Game fans are programed to look for "Where.  Is.  Big.  Boss.  Story.  About.  Big.  Boss." and tracking down tiny gear upgrades along the way.  DA2 abandons both the "Must Slay Archdemon" trope and the crappy gear mechanic from the past. [/quote]
That's just nonsense.  The pinnacle of the genre - Ultima IV - doesn't even have a villain.

And the earliest CRPGs didn't even have endings.  Oubliette (1977) is an endless dungeon crawl.
[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

You say "deep and intricate" and I hear "Load up Excel!  Loot some boots!"  Boring.[/quote]
You're basically saying here that you can't read.  You're simply failing to acknowledge anyone's points.
[quote]pwnjuicesucka wrote...

Lack of different story paths??? In origins You spent 10 minutes on your characters Origin and then everything after that happened generally the same no matter what origin you chose. There is nostalgia effecting people who remember Origins as being any less linear then Dragon Age 2.[/quote]
Nostalgia?  DAO was only 2 years ago.  I can see people making the nostalgia argument for games from 2001, or 1997, or 1986, but not 2009.

Now, on the story point, DAO allows you to tell a great many duifferent stories because you can play a great many very different characters.  That's the story.  That's always the story in a CRPG: the personal journeys and  development of the player's characters.  But in these newer games (especially the ME games), there's only one story to tell.  You don't get to tell a different story by playing a different character, because the game only supports
one rigidly defined characterwithin a very narrow range.
[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I find zero replayability in numbers.  In fact, it totally boggles me that you can find replayability in them.  For me (and I believe many others), I want the numbers stuffed way into the background.  I want the story to be right up front, with all feedback on weapon effectiveness and character developement to be visual.  The way the character moves through the story is where replayability comes from for me.  Which do you prefer:  Play through three getting a Spectral Sword +11 for the first time, or realizing that you can massacre qunari prisoners if you take
enough "mean" choices through out a game?  For me, it's the later.[/quote]
Each character to find that sword will have a different reaction.  Finding that sword will have different degrees of relevance, and different consequences each time it happens.

Do you roleplay at all?

The only thing I want from these games is roleplaying.  And those numbers aid roleplaying by giving me hard data with which to make in-character decisions.  My characters live in the game world - they know it better than I ever can - so the only way I can approximate their level of knowledge is to have a big stack of numbers I can easily consult.

Hiding the numbers breaks the game.

And again, the story is what I do in the game.  The story arises from the roleplaying.  In the absence of
player choice and player control, the story ceases to be interesting because it becomes static.

And your description of the thing you like - discovering things you can do based on your choices - is
something you can only do through metagaming.  I'd be happier if the information you need to do that was hidden from you.  Perhaps if we eliminated the tone icons and randomised the order of the dialogue options so you couldn't so easily game the dialogue system.

That would, I think, improve both gameplay and story, because it would make it harder for you to make decisions out-of-character.

Being in-character is the whole point of these games.  RPG gameplay should consist entirely of making in-character decisions.  Metagame knowledge should never be relevant.
[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

It is a great term through, because I do feel the old way of doing things is spent.  There's a new way (3D, voiced, low gear, cut scene heavy) way to present RPGs -- The Mass Effect 2 model.  The old games were great fun, but their time is over.[/quote]
The new games have yet to allow any roleplaying.  How can I make in-character decisions if I don't know what it is my character is going to do?  How can I make in-character decisions if I'm not even allowed to know my character well enough to predict his behaviour?

Moreover, without an internall consistent ruleset (DA2's combat rules are demonstrably nonsensical), how can my character even make decisions?  The world around him doesn't make any sense.  The player is effectively forced to meta-game, and is assumed to have a boat-load of genre-savvy on which to draw.  Both of these are barriers
to remaining in-character.
[quote](3D, voiced, low gear, cut scene heavy)[/quote]
No technical advancement since NWN has improved gameplay at all.  Not even a little bit.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 31 mars 2011 - 07:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

NKKKK wrote...

Sylvius should be hired by Bioware, in fact Sylvius should replace Mike Laidlaw.

I like Mike.  I think he has a really hard job, and until recently he's been really open about his desires with regard to game design.  And I hope he will be as open again once the media attention around DA2 has died down.

[Taura-Tierno]

And your description of the thing you
like - discovering things you can do based on your choices - is
something you can only do through metagaming. I'd be happier if the
information you need to do that was hidden from you. Perhaps if we
eliminated the tone icons and randomised the order of the dialogue
options so you couldn't so easily game the dialogue system.

That would, I think, improve both gameplay and story, because it would make it harder for you to make decisions out-of-character.

Being
in-character is the whole point of these games. RPG gameplay should
consist entirely of making in-character decisions. Metagame knowledge
should never be relevant.

And yet, you could argue that the dialogue icons makes it easier to create a character with a consistent personality, since you know exactly in what way the character is going to say something. You know if he's going to say it in a nice tone, or be aggressive or helpful, and so on.

Personally, I can see the good sides of both the dialogue wheel with icons, and the old traditional full-text responses. Although I really like the concept of being able to determine a consistent personality for your character. Or as consistent as they get in a CRPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Personally, I can see the good sides of both the dialogue wheel with icons, and the old traditional full-text responses. Although I really like the concept of being able to determine a consistent personality for your character. Or as consistent as they get in a CRPG.

The thing is, there's nothing about the full-text system that prevented you from designing and playing a consistent personality.  The only problem was that sometimes NPCs would react in unexpected ways.

But since I'm not playing the NPCs, and thus don't expect to be able to cojntrol their behaviour, I see that as a vastly smaller problem than not being able to control my own character.

Furthermore, while you're correct that the icons in DA2 do help you play your character consistently, you can only play a small number of different personalities consistently, and you can't know what those personalities are until after you've played them.

That's not you playing a character.  That's you choosing which character you get to watch.

[The_FenixV]

LocutusX wrote...

There are a ton of awesome games for people who don't like numbers. The Longest Journey and Heavy Rain immediately come to mind. I do love the term "dinosaur gamer" though. It's an alluringly provocative way to entice RPG fans to come onto this thread and bash the OP; perhaps, that's what he's looking for.

Heavy Rain a game? Call it an interactive movie, it's a better genre for it than a game. Sadly I don't see the need to 'play' it since... I sadly spoiled everything for myself. 

Heh people fighting that they liked the game and others didn't is pretty common around here it seems, just take some tea and look at them bash at each other, always entertaining and people say we have freedom of speech. Oh well. To me certain things were good in DAII and others were bad. 

[Taura-Tierno]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Personally, I can see the good sides of both the dialogue wheel with icons, and the old traditional full-text responses. Although I really like the concept of being able to determine a consistent personality for your character. Or as consistent as they get in a CRPG.

The thing is, there's nothing about the full-text system that prevented you from designing and playing a consistent personality.  The only problem was that sometimes NPCs would react in unexpected ways.

But since I'm not playing the NPCs, and thus don't expect to be able to cojntrol their behaviour, I see that as a vastly smaller problem than not being able to control my own character.

Furthermore, while you're correct that the icons in DA2 do help you play your character consistently, you can only play a small number of different personalities consistently, and you can't know what those personalities are until after you've played them.

That's not you playing a character.  That's you choosing which character you get to watch.

I would call both role-playing, and I enjoy both types. I think that, for a voiced protagonist, the wheel is the way to go, because it would be somewhat bothersome to first read through exactly what the character is going to say, and then hear them say it. And having a talking character can make for better immersion. But on the other hand, a non-voiced protagonist has its pros, too. So ... I don't really care one way or the other. I find both to be of equal RPG level, and I like them both. 

[ruttunenn]

I vote Sylvius the Mad as the saviour of RPG genre from its dumbdown.

On the topic:
If this simplifying and hiding everything like numbers continues I believe the RPG`s will become
adventure games and they are almost there , just compare modern adventure games and games like ME2 and DA2 and they are not too far apart anymore.

Ultimately if we the gamers become braindead trigger happy button smashers , all
games will merge into one steaming pile of Sexy Action Eplosion genre.

Modifié par ruttunenn, 31 mars 2011 - 08:52 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

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.

Possibly the most retarded thing i've ever read.

To say DA2 and ME2 had a better or more of a story compared to their predecessors is absolutely ridiculous.

[Glorfindel709]

DA2.... has more story..... than DA:O




Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh

[neppakyo]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

DA2.... has more story..... than DA:O




Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh

lol I missed that one. Really? DA2 more story? >.< XD

Man, people can be quite hilarious.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

*yawns*

*scratches belly*

*rolls over giggling*

*goes back to sleep*

[nickan1022]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Autolycus wrote...

BG is a dinosaur. Let it die.

Funny then, like PS:T (another Black Isle developed game btw...Bioware only co-dev'd the BG games) are revered as classics....and people 'still' talk about them today....

Not being intentionally pedantic Rinny, but few people will be talking about DA2 as some gaming masterpiece in 10 years time....

And that, quite frankly, says everything.

We just happen to be in the small group of people that even know what PS:T is an abreviation for.  Few people these days talk about how great PS:T was.  And that's a sample from the people who even know what PS:T stands for.

DA2 won't be heralded as the greatest game of it's time.  It will be looked at as a game the was slightly ahead of its time. 

Srsly, I would let PS:T each chips in my bed.  Just sayin'.  That game was a genius work of art.  Anytime I get asked (and this is not often, to be sure) about the best CRPG I've ever played, that's it.  That's from a body of experience that (like many of you) goes back to the Bard's Tale days and the salad days of Ultima 4.  Mmm...  feel that nostalgia!

[Zjarcal]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

DA2.... has more story..... than DA:O

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh

The OP said that DA2 was "more focused" on story, not necessarily that it had more story. A different way of saying it, DA2 was 50% story, 50% other stuff (just throwing random numbers here), while Origins was 40% story and 60% other stuff.

Origins could still have more story by virtue of being a longer game, but they're referring to the ratio.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

*yawns*

*scratches belly*

*rolls over giggling*

*goes back to sleep*

This is perhaps even more evidence that Rinpoche doesn't want to address serious challenges to his position.