196 réponses à ce sujet

[Edli]

daemon1129 wrote...

Yet BIoware decided to take this new direction to a more modern action rpg.

Action rpg games have been around for a long time now. It's not a modern subgenre.

[cotheer]

I like playing different game genres too (except sport), but when i sit down and decide to play an RPG
i want to play an RPG with all that comes with that genre, not adventure, not action, not h'n's..., the same goes for other game genres.

Still, my main is RPG.

Modifié par cotheer, 30 mars 2011 - 07:43 .

[Pyrate_d]

riccaborto wrote...

I am a GOOD GAMES fan... no matter "old" or "new" school...

This. I didn't play the old school RPGs that people always talk about, but I loved DAO. I liked COD4 but hated MW2. I like good games.

I agree with SuperMedbh. Removing/changing stuff that was in DAO does not make DA2 bad. The poor quality of the storytelling and other obvious flaws make it bad.

[CRISIS1717]

aftohsix wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

riccaborto wrote...

I am a GOOD GAMES fan... no matter "old" or "new" school...

This. 

I don't consider myself a hardcore rpger but I can tell when a game is terrible, and DA2 is definitely terrible. 

What is your opinion of a good game Crisis?  I don't think I've seen you mention it.

 I like RPGS of all shapes and sizes.  I'm not picky

Mass Effect, even Mass Effect 2 which had a different direction but in that case it didn't cause detrimental problems because it was more action rpg/shooter orientated anyway. 

[MonkeyLungs]

I prefer depth of gameplay to flash graphics.

I prefer text to voiced conversations.

I prefer complex character building systems that incorporate non comabt skills and make them important to the game.

I don't really like mini maps with quest markers. I would prefer the player have to acquire a map from a cartographer and utilize the map like one would in real life (ie surveying landscapes etc.). I prefer for NPC's to conversate with me and explain how to reach a place rather than a magical location appearing on a GPS device.

I prefer dungeons that you can actually get lost in and maybe have to reload to a previous save if you failed to find your way out (then you just try again and improve your strategy).

I prefer dungeons that you need to really plan to enter prior to entering them because you really don't want to run out of resources half way in.

I prefer games where NPC's react to you being violent around them.

I prefer games where NPC's do things that might not have anything to do with the player.

I prefer games where choosing sides actually leads to definitive shifts in the game (ie certain pathways will become absolutely closed to you depending upon the choices you make.)

I prefer when games adhere to their own lore all the way down to gameplay. If something is not supposed to happen in the lore of the gameworld I don't think it should happen in gameplay of the gameworld. Lore and gameplay should form a cohesive whole.

I prefer games where the NPC/Enemies etc. follow the same rules as the player character.

I prefer games that have a detailed documentation of their rule systems so that i as a player can read into them and really understand the numbers behind the scenes.

I prefer a more simulation based gameplay approach to a more acade like gameplay approach. Stabbing people with knives/swords is extreme enough, it doesn't really need to be 'spiced' up.

----

None of this means I don't like the new style of games I would just prefer a different style.

[Dark83]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I prefer complex character building systems that incorporate non comabt skills and make them important to the game.

This only works if non-combat solutions exist for quests, of course.

In Drakensang 2, you actually got more rewards (money and xp) from using your social skills than if you ended up in combat.

[randName]

I like modern games, and I like older games; but my limit is games like Wasteland or old 80s RPGs, since I need some eye candy at least (So in RPGs its mostly FO1 forward, even if Ultima 7 is still fun (and looks good given how old it is).

[MonkeyLungs]

Dark83 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I prefer complex character building systems that incorporate non comabt skills and make them important to the game.

This only works if non-combat solutions exist for quests, of course.

In Drakensang 2, you actually got more rewards (money and xp) from using your social skills than if you ended up in combat.

Of course. I'm not really being specific, just stating what I would prefer. My favorite games always have elements that go against what I would prefer and I can't recall any game (even ones I totally love) where I didn't think at least some stuff in it was completely asinine.

[randName]

Dark83 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I prefer complex character building systems that incorporate non comabt skills and make them important to the game.

This only works if non-combat solutions exist for quests, of course.

In Drakensang 2, you actually got more rewards (money and xp) from using your social skills than if you ended up in combat.

In general I prefer it when you get XP per mission, and how well you solved, and not how you solved.
Say ME2 and VtM:Bloodlines.

& when many of the quests can be solved through stealth, deception, diplomacy, etc. and or combat. (also this isn't possible obviously in ME2, and I only used it for the reward part).

[Mousers]

rubydog1 wrote...

daemon1129 wrote...

I was just reading DA2 wikipedia page and saw something I didn't know.  The lead designer of DA:O resigned because he didn't like the direction DA2 is going (I'm sure its not news to any of you guys).

Dragon Age: Origins had three lead designers: Brent Knowles, Mike Laidlaw, and James Ohlen.

According to his personal blog, Knowles left Bioware in September 2009, two months before DA:O even went on sale. He cited stress, wanting to do his own writing, and spending time with his family.

http://blog.brentkno...e-months-later/

Laidlaw stayed on the DA series.

Ohlen went over to the Star Wars MMO.

Make of that what you will. Given that Ohlen was the lead designer on Knights of the Old Republic and BG2, if anybody took the RPG magic with them, I'd say it was Ohlen.

In another blog, actually he talks about each year while at Bioware in a separate blog entry, he does say he left because he didn't like the direction they were taking the franchise.
blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

Mike was the lead of getting DA onto consoles and was promoted to LD of DA2 to replace Brent. (This is actually on the web somewhere). I enjoyed reading about the 10 yrs Brent spent with Bioware and everything he is writing since, great work and looking forward to everything he puts out.

[katling73]

I wouldn't call myself a hardcore fan but I'm definitely an old school rpg fan. DA2 disappointed me in that way. I like it, don't get me wrong, it's a great time-waster but I don't stay up until all hours playing like I did with DAO. It's a play and leave game for me. Personally I don't much like the console type combat with the ludicrously impossible moves and the ridiculous exploding bodies. If I wanted to play a console game, I'd own a console.

[Pariah00]

rubydog1 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

You two aren't telling the whole story either.

I'd love to hear any other story with links.

blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/06/bioware-brent-year-9-fall-2007-summer-2008/

On EA:
"Around October/November we learned BioWare was sold to Electronic Arts. I wasn’t keen on being part of such a large company but I so focused on Dragon Age I didn’t have too much time to think about it then."

blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

From another entry, DA2 relevant parts below:

"Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter."


Later reiterating from an earlier post:

“I’m not the same person I was when I started, and BioWare isn’t the same company. ”

Edit: Goddamnit Anders formatting

Modifié par Pariah00, 30 mars 2011 - 08:07 .

[daemon1129]

the_one_54321 wrote...

SoulRebel_1979 wrote...

Malja wrote...

riccaborto wrote...
I am a GOOD GAMES fan... no matter "old" or "new" school...

Exactly so.

What these two said.

I am also wholely into good games. But not exclusively from BioWare. All I want from BioWare are full on hardcore old school RPGs.

I will get my other variety of good games from other good developers.

I agree, to me Bioware makes great WRPG and I wish it will stay this way.  Which  is one reason why I and many others are so disappointed at DA2. 

One thing Bioware does so well is their way to make NPCs feels real, which is something no other company manage to pull it off as well as Bioware.  Which is I believe is what make WRPG so interesting to play.  Personally I think WRPG armor and weapons and spellsand most art design looks crap compare to JRPG, so I wasn't shocked when the elves turn out to be mutated freaks.  But the other stuff that  I expected to see was either not there or plain terrible.

When I play RPG, I want bosses that require hours of grinding/ dungeon runs, then preparations and planings to beat.  I want to think hard before I pick a class and race because it will change my end game character to either strong enough to beat the hardest dungeon or not.  I want gears that actually looks epic when it is the end game gear that you have put so much effort to get.  And most importantly, I want the game to be over 30 hours long with just the main quests, then its open world so you can explore and do side quests etc,  DA2 delievered none of that.

Modifié par daemon1129, 30 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I prefer depth of gameplay to flash graphics.

I prefer text to voiced conversations.

I prefer complex character building systems that incorporate non comabt skills and make them important to the game.

I don't really like mini maps with quest markers. I would prefer the player have to acquire a map from a cartographer and utilize the map like one would in real life (ie surveying landscapes etc.). I prefer for NPC's to conversate with me and explain how to reach a place rather than a magical location appearing on a GPS device.

I prefer dungeons that you can actually get lost in and maybe have to reload to a previous save if you failed to find your way out (then you just try again and improve your strategy).

I prefer dungeons that you need to really plan to enter prior to entering them because you really don't want to run out of resources half way in.

I prefer games where NPC's react to you being violent around them.

I prefer games where NPC's do things that might not have anything to do with the player.

I prefer games where choosing sides actually leads to definitive shifts in the game (ie certain pathways will become absolutely closed to you depending upon the choices you make.)

I prefer when games adhere to their own lore all the way down to gameplay. If something is not supposed to happen in the lore of the gameworld I don't think it should happen in gameplay of the gameworld. Lore and gameplay should form a cohesive whole.

I prefer games where the NPC/Enemies etc. follow the same rules as the player character.

I prefer games that have a detailed documentation of their rule systems so that i as a player can read into them and really understand the numbers behind the scenes.

I prefer a more simulation based gameplay approach to a more acade like gameplay approach. Stabbing people with knives/swords is extreme enough, it doesn't really need to be 'spiced' up.

----

None of this means I don't like the new style of games I would just prefer a different style.

*sniff*
Agreed. Agreed 1000000%.:happy:

[Mousers]

Monkey I won't quote your long post here but all your preferences are mine also. I did find many of those in 2Worlds2. And since I love mages/wizards their magic system is to die for fabulous. Console commands for all platforms are on the web to turn the graphics into amazing. I wish more games added console commands to adjust graphics on all platforms.

[1000questions]

I like games which have good story, memorable characters.
I want in depth customization so that I can build my character as I wish within the confined boundaries of the environment and game world.
I like games where combat gives me option to play the way I want , like if I want to rush in , kill enemies at pace while taking hit , it should allow me to do it but if I want to master and convincingly defeat my enemies then it should allow me to implement strategy , use tactics as a marshal.
I want my choices to matter. I want more freedom in dialogues which I select or say and depending on my character, its strength,weaknesses and skills I should handle the situation.
I want the rpg game to absorb me, it should be immersive and I should feel the characters,situations.
It should be closer to life and should react and make me feel as if I am living the role of my character.

More or less it should be mixed of old and new style of RPG. It has to be enjoyable and sensible.

[1000questions]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I prefer depth of gameplay to flash graphics.

I prefer text to voiced conversations.

I prefer complex character building systems that incorporate non comabt skills and make them important to the game.

I don't really like mini maps with quest markers. I would prefer the player have to acquire a map from a cartographer and utilize the map like one would in real life (ie surveying landscapes etc.). I prefer for NPC's to conversate with me and explain how to reach a place rather than a magical location appearing on a GPS device.

I prefer dungeons that you can actually get lost in and maybe have to reload to a previous save if you failed to find your way out (then you just try again and improve your strategy).

I prefer dungeons that you need to really plan to enter prior to entering them because you really don't want to run out of resources half way in.

I prefer games where NPC's react to you being violent around them.

I prefer games where NPC's do things that might not have anything to do with the player.

I prefer games where choosing sides actually leads to definitive shifts in the game (ie certain pathways will become absolutely closed to you depending upon the choices you make.)

I prefer when games adhere to their own lore all the way down to gameplay. If something is not supposed to happen in the lore of the gameworld I don't think it should happen in gameplay of the gameworld. Lore and gameplay should form a cohesive whole.

I prefer games where the NPC/Enemies etc. follow the same rules as the player character.

I prefer games that have a detailed documentation of their rule systems so that i as a player can read into them and really understand the numbers behind the scenes.

I prefer a more simulation based gameplay approach to a more acade like gameplay approach. Stabbing people with knives/swords is extreme enough, it doesn't really need to be 'spiced' up.

----

None of this means I don't like the new style of games I would just prefer a different style.

A lot of the above points except for the markers on map thing, because I often get lost

[Mousers]

1000questions wrote...

I like games where combat gives me option to play the way I want , like if I want to rush in , kill enemies at pace while taking hit , it should allow me to do it but if I want to master and convincingly defeat my enemies then it should allow me to implement strategy , use tactics as a marshal.

Oh combat, such great memories. I want the choice how I approach combat also and the more thinking involved the better. I remember playing Diablo hardcore, if you die you start over with a new char. Got all classes to max level of 99. The mobs were different, they had different attacks (per type of mob) and some had many differnt types. You had to pause and think or be really confident if you rushed in. Great times.

[Romantiq]

I just enjoy games that are made well and at the end it feels like money were well spent. I prefer lots and lots of customization / crafting skills etc in the RPGS though.

At the end of Dragon Age Origins I felt that that it worth it because I was already planning different playthroughs with other origins characters. Plus it has ACTUAL choices not illusions.
At the end of Crysis 2 I actually thought , wow holy fkn **** fks this really cost $59??? It should be more. Hell yeah money well spent.
Same thing with Fallout New Vegas. LOTS AND LOTS OF FUN and play time.

DA2 felt like a $39.99 expansion. Weak overall graphics, story, customization etc. Combat got boring after act 1. Liked some characters (except for ****** Merril and QQMOAR Fenris).
Game felt mediocre at best. Could have been truly good though, but nope.

[Anariel Theirin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

SoulRebel_1979 wrote...

Malja wrote...

riccaborto wrote...
I am a GOOD GAMES fan... no matter "old" or "new" school...

Exactly so.

What these two said.

I am also wholely into good games. But not exclusively from BioWare. All I want from BioWare are full on hardcore old school RPGs.

I will get my other variety of good games from other good developers.

Totally agree here.

[Haexpane]

did not read, first paragraph needs to be broken up

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I'm a hardcore RPG'er. I also like the idea of making good action-oriented RPG's, and I love streamlining unnecessarily cumbersome game mechanics. If the definitive elements of the RPG are well implemented, I'm completely okay with abandoning top-down, graph-paper style combat. I could also live without bloated inventory systems (and the gear upgrade stuff that goes with them), HP based damage systems, or levelling itself--provided that the system in place is well crafted.

[Crash_7]

By virtue of being old I'm an old school gamer. But that has never stopped me from investigating new genres and desiring change. I like DA 2 and I'm happy with most of the changes.

[Boiny Bunny]

Out of interest MonkeyLungs, have you played the original Deus Ex? Though it is played from a FPS perspective at a technical level, it has many of the things you've described. Especially the ability to approach most situations from different angles (combat, stealth, conversational, hacking). Admittedly, it is still quite linear in its objectives, but the ways in which you can get to the objectives are very flexible.

[Fhaileas]

daemon1129 wrote...

I was just reading DA2 wikipedia page and saw something I didn't know.  The lead designer of DA:O resigned because he didn't like the direction DA2 is going (I'm sure its not news to any of you guys).

Dragon Age: Origins had three lead designers: Brent Knowles, Mike Laidlaw, and James Ohlen.

Actually, Ohlen left very very early on and Brent Knowles then took over -- DA:O is HIS baby. Laidlaw came on AFTER DA:O went gold on the PC as lead designer of the console ports.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 31 mars 2011 - 12:35 .