206 réponses à ce sujet

[Disnaster]

Euno17 wrote...

Oh stop it.

Topic: "Where Does the Vitriol Come From? Whence Come the Haters?"

That's all that I need to say. But you know, now I am a little curious. What in the blue hell did they do right? THAT's what I want to know.

Was it 'when you press a button, something awesome has to happen'?

What they did right?  In my opinion, they did several things right.  I liked the "framed narrative" idea and the fact that while the end was determined before I began, the road I took there was up to me.  Did it fulfill everything that could have come with such an idea?  No.  But I give kudos for trying something different in a game style that can become stagnant in its originality.

I lked the fact that at least one of the companion quests actually tied into the main story.  Without any spoilers, it surprised me that, unlike the companion quests in DA:O, which had nothing to do with the final outcome, Isabella's story tied directly into the Qunari story.  I also found the character of Merrill to be quite compelling, with the final outcome being something that left me a little surprised and sad.

I have no idea what the "press a button" quote means.  As I've said several times, it's about story.  And I LIKED the story here.  And like I said before, even though it's not Bioware's greatest story, it's still, hands down, better than the stories being told by other developers.  I played Oblivion all the way through, every quest.  And I never ONCE cared for the characters the way I did in this game--even the lame characters.  I'm not driven by button mashing.  I don't really care about combat, and the only FPS games I've ever actually played all the way through are the Halo trilogy.

Like I said earlier, Bioware reminds me of Pixar in that story is always the main thing.  And, even in their "weakest" products (some would say Pixar's "Cars" and obviously Bioware's "DA2"), they are still better than what their competitors put out.

And that's probably the problem.  Bioware is such high quality that when something comes out that doesn't meet that high brand expectation, people feel let down.  I understand--I worked for The Walt Disney Company for a decade, and when people feel a brand they trust has let them down, they get pretty upset.

Are there problems with DA2?  Yes.  But they didn't stop me from enjoying the game.  And that should be okay.  I shouldn't have to read a post that tells me and people like me (others who like DA2) that we should just go kill ourselves.  THAT is the vitriol I'm talking about.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sentox6 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Firmly within genre according to who? To you?  And what power do you have? Because I really think you should relabel your own extensive collection of arcade adventure games.

Don't be obtuse. Collective opinion self-evidently classifies DA2 as an RPG. I can't really post the whole internet and every magazine here. If you want to blindfold yourself and pretend otherwise, go for it. I don't have to prove anything.
 

Let's put it this way. Role-play is acting the character's role. RPG is like a drama's stage where we perform our acting. The book of acting is your wiki quotation trying to write the basis of acting. It's in no way trying to tell what stage should be for drama. Period.

I'm having trouble even making sense of this, frankly.

Look, in DA2 you play a role. You make choices. Just because the character is partially pre-defined, and your interactions are limited to defined categories of behavior, does not mean the game suddenly becomes an entirely different genre.

You're missing the point. But we are very close to danger zone of arguing what define RPG which I reluctant to go further. 

You base your argument on Wiki source of  what is RPG. I'm not saying you are completely wrong. But you can't point to the game and you left out the word Player which is what the wiki is actually trying to highlight. Wiki said Player assume the role of character. Wiki also said Player take responsibility for acting. This two sentences mentioned player and not the game itself. Confused?

Let's look at Final Fantasy. It has character, progression, story and accomplishment. By it's right it is RPG.
Now let's study at Mike Laidlaw's comment about GTA.

We wanted to make RPGs, especially fantasy RPGs, accessible, cool, and interesting to people who have been playing RPGs for the last seven years and not realizing that every time they ate food or went for a long run in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, they were essentially grinding constitution

Is he wrong there? No. He's right. Eating in GTA can make you fat while running can negate the effect. There is element of progression and accomplishment. Therefore it is RPG

So what is my point then?
My point is. there is no dictionary in this world and wiki ever dictate that it's mandatory for me to assume the role of fixed characters defined by others. GTA, JRPG and many other modern western RPG uses their predefined characters. That's include DA 2 too. The title RPG doesn't give the game the right to force me to role-play  their characters. If I can't role-play it due to the absences of element that make it role-playable to me then it's not RPG or simply arcade action adventure game. 

Wiki:
A RPG is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

Dragon Age 2 is a game in which I can't assume the role of Hawke in it's fictional setting
 
What makes a RPG for you doesn't necessary makes a RPG for me. Isn't that why WRPG and JRPG exist? Go figure this. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 mars 2011 - 03:22 .

[Sentox6]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The title RPG doesn't give the game the right to force me to role-play  their characters. If I can't role-play it due to the absences of element that make it role-playable to me then it's not RPG or simply arcade action adventure game.

And again, I have to point out that your insistence that the game does not meet the characteristics of an RPG (by your preferences) does not change the fact that, by collective consensus, DA2 is an RPG. I could change my mind and start agreeing with you, and it still wouldn't change this.

Dragon Age 2 is a game in which I can't assume the role of Hawke in it's fictional setting

You choose where Hawke goes, what Hawkes does, and what Hawke says. The restrictions placed on these choices may be too constricting for your role-playing preferences, but it's still role-playing.

You're right in that an immense number of games can be considered RPGs if you simply define it as taking on a role. Perhaps a better definition from Wiki is the one for role-playing videogames:

Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) form a loosely-defined genre of video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

This is why DA2 is an RPG and (say) DMC4 or GTA4 aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Still, as I said above, our opinions are irrelevant by scale. DA2 is primarily labelled an RPG.

What makes a RPG for you doesn't necessary makes a RPG for me. Isn't that why WRPG and JRPG exist? Go figure this. 

Unless you're arguing that WRPGs and JRPGs aren't both RPGs, I don't see the relevance.

[Sentox6]

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...
I didn't say it would be the primary purpose, and I certainly didn't mean it would be limited to run console type of games. I said entertainment software and I had much fancier things in mind. Not the primary purpose of the PC, but the primary reason to have a PC instead of something else (like a dumb console), for all your home computing, storage and connection needs. And I think you severely underestimate how much PC-gaming has already meant for the cost- and performance-development history of the PC. And also underestimate how much directX has meant for the market share of Windows.[/quote]
I wouldn't say I'm underestimating it, but it's partly a self-sustaining situation. DirectX helped fuel game-development on PC, yes. But Microsoft had already put themselves firmly on the path to market dominance with 3.1. I will agree, though, that graphics hardware development in the consumer sector has been almost entirely driven by gaming, by definition.

Still, the emergence of HD consoles really has changed the playing field. I don't disagree that Microsoft have cannibalised their own PC gaming market to an extent, but it has been for the purpose of extending their gaming market as a whole. There are less barriers to entry for console gaming than PC gaming, however you spin it.

[quote]No. The 360 is nothing at all like a PC.[/quote]
I meant in hardware terms. There's not that much architectural difference between a PC and a 360. Far, far less than, say, the PS3. That's all.

[quote]But the reason MS launched the XBox, and paid good money for doing it, most of the way, was to use competition as a way to stop Sony from establishing a new mass market computing standard. If they hadn't, Sony PS could have eventually become the new PC, conquering computing tiers from below, just as the PC did.[/quote]
Do you have any evidence/quotes for this?

[quote]And sure, MS can use the XBox inline with the trends I pointed out. Only, they're not going to survive by it. Everything changes with each new generation, since nobody achieves standard status. And XBox position on the console market has very much been purchased with money earned from their Windows OS business.[/quote]
If they develop the Xbox inline with said trends, then they'll be evolving by definition, won't though? And just because their position has been achieved thanks to the leverage provided by their OS market, it doesn't follow that the division can't be self-sustaining in the future. It's been profitable for while now; certainly longer than Sony's PlayStation department has been, thanks to their overly expensive console (and its unfriendly development environment).

[quote]The devices are not "closed"? Many, many applications engineered as we speak, are already aimed at the phones and pads. What "homebrew and customization"? You mean hardware? Well in that case we're back with consumer high performance use, meaning gaming?[/quote]
I think you're misunderstanding my point. What makes the PC attractive? Its flexibility. If consoles become less restricted in terms of application, media, and storage support You illustrated a vision of "home computing, storage, and connection needs". What you consider a refining of the role of the PC, I see an expansion of the capabilities of the console. Similar outcome, either way.

[quote]Now I don't know that Apple intends to ever launch a game console. (Maybe they end up using games to ensure dominance of their iPad instead. Who knows?). But if they ever do, I'm quite sure it's not going to be anything same like the other consoles. And money won't help MS then, cause Apple has a lot more.[/quote]
It may well be nothing like the other consoles. If this is the case, I'm not sure how you extrapolate that the market structure will somehow devolve to Apple versus Microsoft. As you point out, the Wii is quite different from the two HD consoles. The MS and Sony posturing is that "we don't compete with the Wii", which has some truth to it. Kinect and Move muddy this a little, admittedly.

[quote]Today, not so many years later, Apple is bigger than MS. So today is a completely different competition. MS will be a future margin player.[/quote]
They're roughly equal in terms of assets/equity/revenues/profit. "Bigger" isn't really a fair claim. Time will tell, anyway.

[quote]The really big future player, and main threat to anyone else, including Apple, is Google.[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote[And I'll tell you a secret: Google fundamentally don't like PCs, and have a clever plan to get rid of them. Google wants all your computing, all your connections, all your storage, everything in their power, under their scrutiny, on their servers. And you're already paying Google money, in roundabout ways you don't know of. And you're already doing things Google wants you to do, in roundabout ways you don't know of.[/quote]
A few too many assumptions about my knowledge in this paragraph for my liking. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I trust Google about as far as I can throw Rosie O' Donnell.

P.S. Forum quotes suck

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 mars 2011 - 04:04 .

[Rutaan]

What nobody has remembered is that the original DA was in development before there was an Xbox 360, much less a PS3. It was always intended to be a PC game, and the idea that it would ever be a console game was absurd. One of the big draws was supposed to be the toolset, which obviously requires a PC. But all of that went out the window right about the time EA managed to get its hooks into Bioware. Then it was stripped down and homogenized for consoles, and the rest is gaming history.

Fast forward to DA2, and PC gamers are being called elitist when we protest being thrown under the bus. I am happy to see that most of the console gamers dismiss the elitist name-calling, but for those of you who believe it is mere elitism, I guess you just had to be there following the DA forums in 2004 when it was just vaporware. We were there giving the devs encouragement and input on what works and doesn't work in an RPG, because we thought we shared a vision with Bioware about what an RPG should be. We did it for years, and we were promised that DA would be the crowning achievement of RPG gaming.

Here's the bottom line: DA2 is an insult to the relationship that Bioware once had with its PC gaming fan base. It isn't so much that we are considered obsolete--that's just business. If they can make more money pandering to console gamers, then far be it from me to stand in their way. God knows we all need to make a living. But don't insult my intelligence by telling me that this watered down pastiche of clichés and fanservice is progress. We went down that road with the first iteration of Neverwinter Nights. Dragon Age was supposed to take the lessons learned from that colossal miscalculation and do better. Now it is déjà vu all over again.

Modifié par Rutaan, 27 mars 2011 - 05:33 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sentox6 wrote...
And again, I have to point out that your insistence that the game does not meet the characteristics of an RPG (by your preferences) does not change the fact that, by collective consensus, DA2 is an RPG. I could change my mind and start agreeing with you, and it still wouldn't change this.

Collective consensus is arguable at best, IF it is even exist . The developers themselves seem to have issue on agreeing what RPG is.  

Sentox6 wrote...
You choose where Hawke goes, what Hawkes does, and what Hawke says. The restrictions placed on these choices may be too constricting for your role-playing preferences, but it's still role-playing.

And how does choosing movement, action and dialogue make any difference to controlling a talking puppet?   

Sentox6 wrote..
You're right in that an immense number of games can be considered RPGs if you simply define it as taking on a role. Perhaps a better definition from Wiki is the one for role-playing videogames:

Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) form a loosely-defined genre of video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

This is why DA2 is an RPG and (say) DMC4 or GTA4 aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Still, as I said above, our opinions are irrelevant by scale. DA2 is primarily labelled an RPG.

I argue complexity, replayability and immersion. DA 2 simplified character creation by imposing predefined character, low replayability value and less immersion. Therefore DA 2 is still not RPG for me. Label doesn't necessary merit a RPG. I'll point to you later.

Sentox6 wrote..

What makes a RPG for you doesn't necessary makes a RPG for me. Isn't that why WRPG and JRPG exist? Go figure this. 

Unless you're arguing that WRPGs and JRPGs aren't both RPGs, I don't see the relevance.

It's as relevance as our argument. You use wiki source, label and collective consensus to support your argument. I have already pointed that my argument is still in accordance with Wiki source. DA 2 lack of complexity, replayability and immersion to make it a RPG.  Now let's see about your argument with game's label from developer point of view.

1.) GTA has no RPG label, yet Mike Laidlaw consider it as RPG.

2.) Here's interesting quote regarding JRPG from BioWare Writing Director, Daniel Erickson's  point of view.

“Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route,” Erickson said, “You can put a ‘J’ in front of it, but it’s not an RPG. You don’t make any choices, you don’t create a character, you don’t live your character… I don’t know what those are – adventure games maybe? But they’re not RPG’s.”

nukoda.com/news/bioware-final-fantasy-xiii-not-an-rpg/

The irony is, what Daniel Erickson said about FF XII is exactly the same as how I feel about DA 2 currently. I don't make any choices. I don't create a character and I don't live my character.

3.) This is written by one of the developers, Brian Green, Co-Founder Near Death Studios, Inc. and co-editor on the book Business & Legal Primer for Game Development, published by Charles River Media

The role of the term "RPG"

For me, an "RPG" is a game where I can take a role in the world through a character (or even multiple characters). The game might focus on combat, but I want to be able to define my own personality (or personalities) for my character(s) and let them develop in and affect the world. Even a typical dungeon delve can be an opportunity for me to add some personal spice to the characters and be an RPG. Note that not everyone who plays the game has to role-play for a game to be an RPG.

What role-playing requires

So, looking back, what does role-playing require in games?

Imagination This is the important bit. If you have little imagination, you won't be able to role-play well because you won't be able to put yourself in the situation. This is especially important if you're playing a game without others.

Freedom I think the more rules you try to apply to the game, the less freedom you have and the less important role-playing becomes. As I said, the addition of a "haggling" skill can turn a role into a roll. (A good system will allow the role to modify or even supersede the roll, though.) The more you try to codify things in the game, the less freedom you have. You don't need rules to play a roll, even if you need some rules to resolve conflicts.

Agreement If you're going to play with other people, you need to agree what role-playing is. For some people, it's not taking the game too seriously and cracking a few in-jokes. That's fine, but it's going to make someone who wants to really immerse him- or herself in a character unhappy. When playing single-player RPGs, I only had to agree with myself. (That's harder that it should be perhaps.)

source:http://psychochild.org/?p=760

I repeat his sentence again, "not everyone who plays the game has to role-play for a game to be an RPG."

RPG label is meaningless. It doesn't make a game a RPG.



 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 mars 2011 - 05:59 .

[Solica]

Sentox6 wrote...

I think you're misunderstanding my point. What makes the PC attractive? Its flexibility. If consoles become less restricted in terms of application, media, and storage support You illustrated a vision of "home computing, storage, and connection needs". What you consider a refining of the role of the PC, I see an expansion of the capabilities of the console. Similar outcome, either way.

There is one comment I feel I want to make:
The one defining thing about the PC, which sets it apart from consoles and mobile devices, is its power and capacity. A modern, self-assembled desktop is a true leviathan of power. A wonderful tool capable of doing wonderful things. That is the point about what I think is the leverage for MS, to defend their PC-platform and the size of its market.

This opportunity was open to them as soon as X86 cpus with 64-bit addressing hit the market. Instead, MS has been almost a braking factor, holding back developments.
They have done so, very directly, in gaming. The original Halo project was conceived as a ground-breaking, revolutionary PC game. MS purchased it and turned this completely around, making a crippled, limited, typical console gaming experience. Albeit very good experience for a console game, less than a shadow of what was originally planned. Similarily we have seen advanced PC-shooters like 'Far Cry' (original game) and the 'Stalker' series go completely extinct. Instead all shooters have become the simplistic railroad through a shooting galley, with pop-up targets. Like 'Gears of War' and 'CoD'. The only gameplay existing in these sub-retarded travesties (except for aiming and shooting) is guessing what the developers want you to do, cause if you don't, the railroad script driving the game won't progress.
The reason for this revolting simplicity is simply that game consoles can't handle anything else. They're nothing compared to PCs. They do not have computing capacity to do involved pathfinding, AI or simulation. And they do not have the memory addressing capabilities to do any involved world simulations. Dumbing down games for consoles is a hardware neccessity, not maybe so much an adaption to customers. That part I suspect is more a case of most console players having a very close horizon. They have no clue. Look at the widespread acclaim for 'Gears of War' when it was released. An awful game, quite frankly, crude and primitive, left behind in the dust by PC-shooters published a decade earlier. Yet such crummy **** is all we get for shooters these days, even on the PC. Because the games have to fit on consoles!

A 360 or PS3 is nothing like a PC. And taking it on a road to evolve it into a PC is a redundant/ meaningless exercise, since the PC already exists. And it would not be able to compete with the PC in any direct comparison. The PC would always be cheaper, more powerful and more flexible. And MS own the PC market today. There are no reasons they would own the hypothetical, future 'powerful-flexible-console' market.

The consoles inhabit a world where they can make do with less. One reason they can do this is that there aren't any games or other entertainment software that explores what is possible on a PC. This is to a considerable degree due to MS hijacking and/or dumbing down titles for the XB360.
MS is allowing the PC to slip down into that kind of world (where less can make do) as well. I'm sorry, but the office-PC and the connecticity/housekeeping laptop - which MS so completely rely on now as their sustaining market - will not survive!  ...on their own.
Unless MS starts to do something smart (not happening with Ballmer), they will be replaced by simpler devices, driven by OS from Google, connected to a global net ruled by Google. In the office environment, where access to large amounts of data is a common requirement, they will cope by becoming 'thin clients'.

Modifié par Solica, 27 mars 2011 - 02:28 .

[Bostur]

Disnaster wrote...

I have no idea what the "press a button" quote means.  As I've said several times, it's about story.  And I LIKED the story here.  And like I said before, even though it's not Bioware's greatest story, it's still, hands down, better than the stories being told by other developers.  I played Oblivion all the way through, every quest.  And I never ONCE cared for the characters the way I did in this game--even the lame characters.  I'm not driven by button mashing.  I don't really care about combat, and the only FPS games I've ever actually played all the way through are the Halo trilogy.

Like I said earlier, Bioware reminds me of Pixar in that story is always the main thing.  And, even in their "weakest" products (some would say Pixar's "Cars" and obviously Bioware's "DA2"), they are still better than what their competitors put out.

For some people its not all about story. Gameplay matters too. Sometimes the gameplay in RPGs meld together with the story, sometimes it seems separated. In either case I expect the gameplay to be a fun element. If the gameplay melds with the story my gameplay expectations are probably lower.
My take on DA2 is that neither happens. The gameplay doesn't seem to relate much to the story, and it doesn't work very well on its own account. It simply becomes an annoyance between cut-scenes.

A lot of people including myself, are dissappointed with the gameplay. Thats probably the best answer to your original question, some of us expect to play a game, not just experience an interactive movie. You having different expectations is of course perfectly valid, and explains why you perceive the game different.

I would never compare it to something made by Pixar because Pixar makes movies and Bioware makes games. For me thats comparing apples to oranges. For you the comparison is valid because your point of view is that Bioware makes interactive movies.

[Disnaster]

Bostur wrote...

Disnaster wrote...

I have no idea what the "press a button" quote means.  As I've said several times, it's about story.  And I LIKED the story here.  And like I said before, even though it's not Bioware's greatest story, it's still, hands down, better than the stories being told by other developers.  I played Oblivion all the way through, every quest.  And I never ONCE cared for the characters the way I did in this game--even the lame characters.  I'm not driven by button mashing.  I don't really care about combat, and the only FPS games I've ever actually played all the way through are the Halo trilogy.

Like I said earlier, Bioware reminds me of Pixar in that story is always the main thing.  And, even in their "weakest" products (some would say Pixar's "Cars" and obviously Bioware's "DA2"), they are still better than what their competitors put out.

For some people its not all about story. Gameplay matters too. Sometimes the gameplay in RPGs meld together with the story, sometimes it seems separated. In either case I expect the gameplay to be a fun element. If the gameplay melds with the story my gameplay expectations are probably lower.
My take on DA2 is that neither happens. The gameplay doesn't seem to relate much to the story, and it doesn't work very well on its own account. It simply becomes an annoyance between cut-scenes.

A lot of people including myself, are dissappointed with the gameplay. Thats probably the best answer to your original question, some of us expect to play a game, not just experience an interactive movie. You having different expectations is of course perfectly valid, and explains why you perceive the game different.

I would never compare it to something made by Pixar because Pixar makes movies and Bioware makes games. For me thats comparing apples to oranges. For you the comparison is valid because your point of view is that Bioware makes interactive movies.

Uhm, no.  My point is that to me, story is everything.  And what the heck is an interactive movie?  Not sure.

But a good story is a good story regardless of the medium.  Is Mass Effect's story any less amazing than a great sci-fi novel like Dune because it was made for a game?  Is Dragon Age's story any less good than *name of favorite sword and sorcery epic* because it is made for a game?  (THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I already know how a lot of people feel about the story.)  



I get that for people who have played RPGs for a long time, the "dumbing down" (for lack of a better term) is irritating and disappointing.  And some of the posts here have helped me undestand that, which I didn't before.  I've only played games like this on a console, so my expectations are different.  And the gameplay that I experienced on my console was far more entertaining than say, Alan Wake (which also has a good story) or Gears of War (which does not).  Was it perfect?  No way.  But it's still superior to almost everything else that is out there.

I get the anger--I can understand it at least--toward the game's developers for letting down the PC gamers who "put them where they are."  But everything evolves, and as things move more and more away from PC-centered lives (with iPads and consoles and smartphones and everything else), this may, sadly, become more of a niche market than what it used to be.  I'm not saying I like that.  I just want good games, regardless of what platform they are on.  And I guess--well, maybe I'm feeling a little bad for all the PC-based Bioware fans who feel betrayed.

I relate it to what happened when I worked for Disney and they started putting out those crappy direct-to-video sequels.  They cheapened the brand, diluted the product that was good with inferior stuff, and lost a lot of people in the process.  They've learned from that and are making adjustments, but it's too late for some people.  For a lot of PC gamers, this may be that moment in their relationship with Bioware.

Modifié par Disnaster, 27 mars 2011 - 06:04 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Disnaster wrote...

Uhm, no. My point is that to me, story is everything. And what the heck is an interactive movie? Not sure.

But a good story is a good story regardless of the medium. Is Mass Effect's story any less amazing than a great sci-fi novel like Dune because it was made for a game? Is Dragon Age's story any less good than *name of favorite sword and sorcery epic* because it is made for a game? (THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I already know how a lot of people feel about the story.)



I get that for people who have played RPGs for a long time, the "dumbing down" (for lack of a better term) is irritating and disappointing. And some of the posts here have helped me undestand that, which I didn't before. I've only played games like this on a console, so my expectations are different. And the gameplay that I experienced on my console was far more entertaining than say, Alan Wake (which also has a good story) or Gears of War (which does not). Was it perfect? No way. But it's still superior to almost everything else that is out there.

I get the anger--I can understand it at least--toward the game's developers for letting down the PC gamers who "put them where they are." But everything evolves, and as things move more and more away from PC-centered lives (with iPads and consoles and smartphones and everything else), this may, sadly, become more of a niche market than what it used to be. I'm not saying I like that. I just want good games, regardless of what platform they are on. And I guess--well, maybe I'm feeling a little bad for all the PC-based Bioware fans who feel betrayed.

I relate it to what happened when I worked for Disney and they started putting out those crappy direct-to-video sequels. They cheapened the brand, diluted the product that was good with inferior stuff, and lost a lot of people in the process. They've learned from that and are making adjustments, but it's too late for some people. For a lot of PC gamers, this may be that moment in their relationship with Bioware.

Now that you have a basic understanding let me try to ice the cake. I have always been more of console gamer than a PC gamer however I fell in love with PC RPGs back in 1988 when mama bought Pool of Radiance and Adventure Construction Set for me. Pool of Radiance had solid gameplay and a strong story. I tried to get into console RPGs and it was a tough go. I generally dislike JRPGs but my taste are well rounded and I can name some I really like. I felt that the industry suffered because many of the great western RPGs didnt reach the growing console market. In the mid 90s there were no more Ultima ports. It was JRPG console western PC with few exceptions. Then like in the late 80s in the late 90s the western RPGs had another renaissance.
You could argue that BG led the renaissance. Though many would point to Fallout I still contend that BG was just as good mechanically. Still console gamers didn’t get a taste. Games like FF 7 that I didn’t compare well to my favorite JRPGs received many accolades. The market was still segregated until Morrowind on the Xbox. A lot of PC gamers didn’t like the trend but I thought it was about time the masses got a taste of western RPGs. You know what I have to say that many of those PC gamers were right. The move to consoles accorded a drop in quality. It was immediate but it was worth enduring. You could see it with KOTOR. For me it didn’t actually cause me to dislike anything until DA:O. Couldnt stand the game. It had so much potential too.

[Thibbledorf26]

The haters come from Earth, just like the fans. The word haters is probably not the right word for people who don't like the game, it is like calling people who like it fanboys. Some people feel the game is high-quality, some feel its low-quality. Some people don't like the changes made. Some do. Period. There will always be different opinions, and each side has well-reasoned individuals and convincing arguments. There never will be only one opinion on any product.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

To me, DA 2 is a dish that is overcooked and under-seasoned. I'm not burning the restaurant down, but I sure am having second thoughts about giving it any future business. It's not hate if people express their dislike in polite ways. You shouldn't label all criticism as hate.

[Bostur]

Disnaster wrote...

Uhm, no.  My point is that to me, story is everything.  And what the heck is an interactive movie?  Not sure.

But a good story is a good story regardless of the medium.  Is Mass Effect's story any less amazing than a great sci-fi novel like Dune because it was made for a game?  Is Dragon Age's story any less good than *name of favorite sword and sorcery epic* because it is made for a game?  (THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I already know how a lot of people feel about the story.)  

I know, and to me story is not everything. At least not story in the traditional sense. Thats where we differ :-)


A good story is a good story, I agree with that. Most game stories however aren't good enough to be judged on their own in my opinion. Dune is a far better story than ME, but ME is a story told in a different way because its in a game, so gameplay + story makes for a whole bigger than the sum of its part. Thats what makes the ME story great for me. I'm sure I would find it very boring if I just watched it as a movie.
The games that I think have really good story, only have a small part as traditional storytelling elements. The narrative or cutscenes are at most 50% of the story. The rest is the little details of the games. The design of the world, the inhabitants, the history even animations and how the game is controlled can be part of the story. Those elements can complement the traditional story telling. Without those elements the story would often become too shallow.



An interactive story/movie is a phenomenon that was attempted many years ago, but they never got very popular. Its basically what a game like ME or DA would be if you just used all the video and dialogues without any game. The viewer would select how the story would be told by selecting from multiple choices.
In practice most readers/viewers wouldn't want to decide how the story unfolds, that feels contrary to the storytelling medium.
Since games are a different medium with more interactivity, it works different. We accept and expect interactivity in a game.

[Lee T]

Rutaan wrote...

What nobody has remembered is that the original DA was in development before there was an Xbox 360, much less a PS3. It was always intended to be a PC game, and the idea that it would ever be a console game was absurd. One of the big draws was supposed to be the toolset, which obviously requires a PC. But all of that went out the window right about the time EA managed to get its hooks into Bioware. Then it was stripped down and homogenized for consoles, and the rest is gaming history.

Fast forward to DA2, and PC gamers are being called elitist when we protest being thrown under the bus. I am happy to see that most of the console gamers dismiss the elitist name-calling, but for those of you who believe it is mere elitism, I guess you just had to be there following the DA forums in 2004 when it was just vaporware. We were there giving the devs encouragement and input on what works and doesn't work in an RPG, because we thought we shared a vision with Bioware about what an RPG should be. We did it for years, and we were promised that DA would be the crowning achievement of RPG gaming.

Here's the bottom line: DA2 is an insult to the relationship that Bioware once had with its PC gaming fan base. It isn't so much that we are considered obsolete--that's just business. If they can make more money pandering to console gamers, then far be it from me to stand in their way. God knows we all need to make a living. But don't insult my intelligence by telling me that this watered down pastiche of clichés and fanservice is progress. We went down that road with the first iteration of Neverwinter Nights. Dragon Age was supposed to take the lessons learned from that colossal miscalculation and do better. Now it is déjà vu all over again.

I've got some contradicting vibes from that posts.

Probably because I own both a PC and 360, was following Dragon Age Origins back in those days yet I played it on console. Wanted DA2-360 to be more like DAO-PC because it was the better experience. Fool of me to have the same expectations for a game whatever the media I use to play it and be the same guy when I sit at my desk or in my couch...

We're not seeing a failing in quality because the "console players" are stupid. But because TPTB actually seem to believe that there is such a group and that this group actually are drooling idiots.

Their failing is ours when we do play the game, let's not make it our own when we lobby for better games.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

It comes from /B/SN.

[Merced652]

thatbwoyblu wrote...

Yes it is mostly P.C elitist. To make matters worst these dude is 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years old and crying over a video game. Can you say MAN BABY EMO:o

Yea i don't know where all this vitriol comes from. I don't see how it has anything do with having a different opinion and then having someone like this fine gentleman say this about you. Couldn't be. 

Modifié par Merced652, 27 mars 2011 - 11:54 .

[Mantaal]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Pretty sure it's 4chan, or RPGcodex. They are coming over here and spamming hate threads, because everyone else I know loves DA2.

This actually made me laugh hard.

[Rutaan]

Lee T wrote...

I've got some contradicting vibes from that posts.

Probably because I own both a PC and 360, was following Dragon Age Origins back in those days yet I played it on console. Wanted DA2-360 to be more like DAO-PC because it was the better experience. Fool of me to have the same expectations for a game whatever the media I use to play it and be the same guy when I sit at my desk or in my couch...

We're not seeing a failing in quality because the "console players" are stupid. But because TPTB actually seem to believe that there is such a group and that this group actually are drooling idiots.

I'm far from an expert on the realities of game coding, but it seems fairly obvious that PC games can and do get butchered so they can be played on consoles. The only way it is realistic to expect a similar experience from both platforms is if the game is reduced to the lowest common denominator in terms of computing power and input devices.

But your second paragraph does bring up a good point. The pandering isn't the fault of those being pandered to, and it it shows more than anything else the soulless committe design of DA2. They tried to throw a bone to everyone and instead ended up producing a boner instead. The fact that some of the groups they were trying to impress don't exist in quite the way they believed gives a hint at the low opinion they have for many of us who buy their product. I'm still trying to understand what segment of the gaming community was supposed to enjoy the armored guys who fall from the sky in the middle of the battles. That must be the eight year old part of the fan base. Maybe that was the same age group targeted for the ultra lame brothel visits. It really is impossible to fathom what was going on in their minds.

[Rutaan]

PurebredCorn wrote...

DA2 is far from perfect but if you value story and amazing characters than it's easy to see past the major flaws in the game play part of it.

It has some good moments, and good voice actors help, but I haven't finished it yet, so I can't pass judgment on the overall plot.

It is a Frankenstein monster of a pretty good RPG, and one of the most god-awful game designs ever foisted on an unwary public.

[Slayer299]

PurebredCorn wrote...

DA2 is far from perfect but if you value story and amazing characters than it's easy to see past the major flaws in the game play part of it.

I disagree with you, I did not find the story to be amazing nor the majority of characters. DA2's story seemed very disjointed and barely connected to much of anything until Act 2 when it sort becomes bipolar between choosing A or B where A is more sympathietic and then does a 180 to the reverse.

As to the char's we don't learn all that much about them over a 7yr time period. To use as an example; Isabella is almost a complete stranger. We do learn about her mom and a past marriage, another old love (can't say really much here specifically) and not much more than that. Do we learn of any personal dreams/plans of hers beyond being with Hawke in Kirkwall? Her favorite color? Which dagger she likes better?

DA2 has a really strong potential underneath overall, but it feels  like everythingt in the game got the short end of things to be rushed out the door.

[Gatt9]

Sentox6 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The title RPG doesn't give the game the right to force me to role-play  their characters. If I can't role-play it due to the absences of element that make it role-playable to me then it's not RPG or simply arcade action adventure game.

And again, I have to point out that your insistence that the game does not meet the characteristics of an RPG (by your preferences) does not change the fact that, by collective consensus, DA2 is an RPG. I could change my mind and start agreeing with you, and it still wouldn't change this.

Dragon Age 2 is a game in which I can't assume the role of Hawke in it's fictional setting

You choose where Hawke goes, what Hawkes does, and what Hawke says. The restrictions placed on these choices may be too constricting for your role-playing preferences, but it's still role-playing.

You're right in that an immense number of games can be considered RPGs if you simply define it as taking on a role. Perhaps a better definition from Wiki is the one for role-playing videogames:

Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) form a loosely-defined genre of video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

This is why DA2 is an RPG and (say) DMC4 or GTA4 aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Still, as I said above, our opinions are irrelevant by scale. DA2 is primarily labelled an RPG.

What makes a RPG for you doesn't necessary makes a RPG for me. Isn't that why WRPG and JRPG exist? Go figure this. 

Unless you're arguing that WRPGs and JRPGs aren't both RPGs, I don't see the relevance.

I just have to point out,  Sentox is absolutely right.

The basis for Roleplaying is that you have a character who is defined,  solidly with penalties or outright inability to act outside of the Role.  DA2 does achieve this.

RPG's aren't "I make my own Role",  it's long established and pretty much fundamental that it is permissable to have a character assigned to you.  Dragonlance is the best example,  the entire setting was based upon a series of modules within which you were assigned Roles to play. 

RPG's have long included the option for assigned Roles in order to provide a more focused narrative.  For about 30 years now or so.  In truth,  you could argue that nearly any RPG assigns roles to you to some extent or another,  as even in PnP you are generally expected to play your Role along the narrative the DM intended,  just with a large amount of leeway in how you do it.

So I'm sorry,  but creating your own Role is not a basis of an RPG,  assigned is viable and generally accepted.

[Scnew]

tbh, the OP lost all credibility saying that Leliana was their favorite DAO character.

[Medhia Nox]

Yes, and since Hawke role is "failure" - you achieve "roleplaying" this perfectly.

====

Gatt9 - have you ever actually played tabletop? Modules that handed out pre-made characters died with "Advanced D&D" - the first version. The Dragonlance modules - were adventures, they weren't an RPG.

I'm sorry, there is so much untruth with what your saying about tabletop roleplaying - I simply can't ignore it.

You would be more accurate if you were just talking about CRPGs... they're limited by programming, but still - the illusion of providing what tabletop does, is what makes an RPG (and in my opinion, DA: 2 fails spectacularly at the 'illusion of choice' provided by quality CRPGs) .

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 28 mars 2011 - 02:58 .

[SlamminHams]

Disnaster wrote...

If you played Merrill's quest to its tragic conclusion, how could you not feel something?

It, like all quest wrap ups in DA2 are forced down your throat.

Or when the First Enchanter does *that* before the final battle--did you not say, "No no!  Don't do it!"  (I did.)

You mean the part that didn't make any sense in the story except for one letter in one little part of the game...?  It was just an excuse to throw another crappy boss battle into the game.