196 réponses à ce sujet

[Bostur]

rpx78noob wrote...

Neverwinter & baldurs gate = found too complicated, too much info to digest just on char creation. In fact, i was also pretending to ask someone with experience on BG2 for some motivation to go further in the game: whats it about that makes it so well spoken of?

I think BG became popular due to the historical context. There had been a period with very few computer RPGs, and BG marked a new era with the re-introduction of RPGs. It had pretty graphics for the time, a story and was based on AD&D which people knew. That was pretty much all us fans needed.

Prior to that SSI owned the license to make AD&D games for computer. They made a lot of games with basically the same engine but with different stories and settings. So BG was by many considered the modern extension of the old SSI games.

[CitizenSnips]

The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time was the first game I really considered amazing. Then I grabbed Baldur's Gate and fell in love with it and it's successor. Same with Final Fantasy 7, same with KotOR. I also consider Mass Effect 1 and 2 to be amazing games. Great games are great games. Dragon Age 2 does not fall into that category.

[Goldfinger168]

I would probably be considered an old school whiny gamer, especially by the many people who apparently have never played a RPG older than Oblivion. I don't want carbon copies of older games. But to me the genre just stopped evolving early in the previous decade. What was the last RPG that had something new to offer ? Bloodlines ? DA2 is a terribly conservative game that relies on shortcuts that should have disappeared ten years ago. I do want new RPGs. I just don't see how DA2 can feel new to anyone. Except for the cosmetic aspects, I feel like I've played better versions of it dozens of times before.

Modifié par Goldfinger168, 31 mars 2011 - 07:44 .

[Aidunno]

For me if you want a "Hardcore RPG" game you simply get a group of friends around and play pen and paper in a social environment. Even then you have a large range in what you could classify as hardcore. Want to spend 5mins working out if you can hit something or 10secs depending on your choice of system. All have advantages and disadvantages and in my opinion, it's not just the playing but the social interaction which is important and what makes it fun.

If I'm playing on my computer I'm happy providing it is entertaining. I generally don't play multiplayer so any game I play has to hold up on the single player front rather than have the single player campaign as a seeming "afterthought".

[Terror_K]

*raises hand

[Warheadz]

Well... what I was looking for in DA2 was the same school (school, not same game) style as in DA:O... Equipment managing, awesome loot, hard bosses, and a lot of stuff you can find just by being really careful. In DA2 exploration was simply boring. Same areas, and the loot didn't actually matter.

Other thing is the decision making. I don't know if I am an "overthinker", but I don't really understand why people say the decisions themselves were too easy (In DA:O). For example, when Kolgrim approached me and offered me an ancient power for defiling the ashes, I had to seriously think about whether to do it or not. This was part of a major quest. DA2 tried to copy that into "Night Terrors", but it didn't work for me. It just didn't have the same impact, grandness or mystique.

You couldn't make many decisions that mattered in DA:O. And that sucked, after they marketed it as a "10 years long story, during it you will see the consequences of your actions!"....

Modifié par Warheadz, 31 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Critical Miss wrote...

I love all types of rpgs. If they entertain me with a good story, decent combat etc, I'm happy. I do miss 2D rpgs though. I suppose there isn't an audience for them anymore. I'm slowly going through Drakensang at the moment, and it sort of has a 2D feel about it.

I'm playing Drakensan ATM too. Awesome game.



Prettier than DA2.
www.google.hr/search

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 mars 2011 - 08:07 .

[Taura-Tierno]

Seeing as how I really like pen-and-paper RPG's (although I haven't had the opportunity to play those in a while) I'd consider myself an "old school" RPG'er.

For me, role-playing isn't all about complex equipment management and a dozen classes, though. I liked BG2. It had its share of flaws and faults, but it was a great game. I also enjoyed Origins, and I definitely enjoy most of the gameplay mechanics there more than those in BG2 (and D&D in general).

In some ways, DA2 is a much better RPG than BG2, such as in terms of having fair options of making "good"/"evil" decisions. In others, DA2 is somewhat less of an RPG (the inability to choose race, for instance). Which is the better RPG? I'm not sure, really. I enjoy both a lot from an RPG perspective.

Besides ... for me, RPG is about much more than just numbers and inventory management. I'd say character development and story are the most important factors. In that sense, I'd certainly call DA2 "hardcore".

[moilami]

88mphSlayer wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

I prefer old school RPGs. Personally, I think Origins should have never made it to consoles. The whiny console kiddie crowd whined and cried about everything until DA2 became consolized, dumbed down action RPG for 15 year olds.

I only hope Blizzard won't give in and never releases Diablo 3 for consoles. Thankfully they have plenty of money to keep the console plague away from true gamers.

Diablo 3 is already dumbed down without a console port planned

also Torchlight worked on a gamepad and sold really well... it's almost inevitable that Diablo 3 will come to consoles...

Um, boss, how you can dumb down Diablo? *Deekin voice*

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Critical Miss wrote...

I love all types of rpgs. If they entertain me with a good story, decent combat etc, I'm happy. I do miss 2D rpgs though. I suppose there isn't an audience for them anymore. I'm slowly going through Drakensang at the moment, and it sort of has a 2D feel about it.

I'm playing Drakensan ATM too. Awesome game.



Prettier than DA2.
www.google.hr/search

Looked very immersivable. Thanks of the info, will deffo have to check that out.

[moilami]

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.

We need more people like you. When We > them we might get what We want. Not sure though since devs can just figure out that if they still dumb down games both We and "them" still will buy those.


Edit: There is no easy solution. That's why BG + mods might be the king next 10 years. Or, lul, forever.

Modifié par moilami, 31 mars 2011 - 09:55 .

[abaris]

What qualifies a hardcore RPG fan?

I know, that I don't like the way DAII has taken. The combat, which is ludicrous and flashy, in my opinion, made sure of that. It in itself ruins the immersion I want to feel and makes sure I can't identify with a character, who does a Roger Rabbit whenever an enemy appears.

I liked Morrowind, since it was new when it first hit the shelves in 2002, I liked Oblivion less, since it only seemed to be polished a little bit and got stuck halfway in the ambitious plan to create a living environment. I liked NWNII, played it for about 4 years with different characters, I liked ME1 and ME2, although I thought I wouldn't enjoy that kind of setting. But when I found both instalments on a second hand market I thought to give them a try. To tell the truth, I liked the depth of ME1 more than I liked ME2, although I was perfectly aware of the repeated environments and tedious Mako side missions. The companion interaction made more than up for the obvious flaws.

Suffice to say, I'd like to get away from every day life whenever I play a RPG like game. Shooting or fighting won't do. I want to be a memorable figure, which I ain't in real life. I want to dive into the environment and the story isn't that important compared to companions and choices for my character. If its the upthousandth repeat of save the world, so be it. Its not what is told, its how its told.

That said, DAII, from what I experienced in the demo, doesn't fulfill that criteria, Its like Mafia, where I made the mistake to buy the second part because I enjoyed the first. I never played it through though. Got bored with the premade storyline which is only based on fights and the get rich scheme without any moral decisions influencing the outcome. The gamebreaker is indeed the outcome - at least for me - if its premade and set in stone, my immersion is lost.

[Firky]

pwnjuicesucka wrote...

And when we say old school / hardcore RPG what exactly does that entail? Might and Magic? Ultima? Final Fantasy 1?  Turn Based? Overhead view?  It just seems that old school hardcore RPG covers so much ground that it really just means ¨an RPG I liked with older gameplay mechanics¨ which would mean anyone that has ever played and enjoyed any RPG is an old school hardcore RPG fan.  

I used to be proud to call my self an old school/hardcore RPG fan. Now I'm just surprised by how many people in this thread have misspelled Baldur's Gate.

@moilami, "We > them we might get what We want." This makes me more sad for gaming than any perceived "dumbing down" of a genre.

Modifié par Firky, 31 mars 2011 - 10:12 .

[Tommy6860]

RussMajere wrote...

I'm not sure what an old school/hardcore RPG fan is, but I love the BG and IWD series, hated NWN, loved NWN2, never played ME (still on my shelf, don't have time for it yet), love both DAO and DA2... I also like Halo, NBA2k, Civ series and a crapload of other games. So I'm not sure if I'm a "hardcore" RPG fan. For some reason, I imagine those people as only liking RPGS, JRPGS, tactical RPGS, LARPing and doing table top gaming, and if that's how you define it then no... I doubt a lot of them exist anymore, I think it was a late 80s early 90s thing,.. they probably branched out of all that now

Seems you like them in all genres, and that can be a good thing as your type tends to be more appreciative of getting a really good game, delving into it and then really getting absorbed by the games. RPGs in general appeal to your type more, than the hardcore, as they are more demanding. I used to love shooters and racers, and I did them because of multiplayer and having fun online, but now they are all the same, escpeially shooter as they are all MW mimics.

At heart though, I have been and always will be an RPGer first and foremost.

[Tommy6860]

Slayer299 wrote...

I started out playing games like Ultima III and Wizardry: PGotMO and then the BG series/IWD so I guess you can call me an old school RPG fan, but I like Civ, MechWarrior III and even CoD2.

For the most part I've enjoyed Bioware's titles like ME, KotOR and even JE, but when DAO came out it was just such a sweet step back towards the style of RPG's I love (they've even got a BG2 mod for DAO!. Sorry, couldn't resist ).

But DA2 isn't a step towards something new, it was an attempt to make crap, slap a pretty face on it and sell it to customers for a price of an actually well-made, game.

I haven't played BG since 2002 and BG2 since 2004 after having pl;ayed it like 50 times. But I sold them off long ago and now I am tempted to get thema gain jsut for the DA:O mod you mentioned. I have to say Origins is hands down my favorite overall RPG of all time and I am now sick from withdrawl after playing this dismal release of this thing that has Dragon Age in its name.

[Firky]

Tommy6860 wrote...

I haven't played BG since 2002 and BG2 since 2004 after having pl;ayed it like 50 times. But I sold them off long ago and now I am tempted to get thema gain jsut for the DA:O mod you mentioned.

They are on GoG.

http://www.gog.com/e...e_original_saga

http://www.gog.com/e...gate_2_complete

[TaHol]

I would say I'm hardcore RPG fan, not oldschool. But I really like ME2, and that is not "hardcore" RPG, I think. I just happen to like shooters too, and it combines my two favorite genres in great way. My dislike of DA2 has nothing to do with it being/not being RPG/enough RPG.

Modifié par TaHol, 31 mars 2011 - 10:40 .

[moilami]

Firky wrote...

pwnjuicesucka wrote...

And when we say old school / hardcore RPG what exactly does that entail? Might and Magic? Ultima? Final Fantasy 1?  Turn Based? Overhead view?  It just seems that old school hardcore RPG covers so much ground that it really just means ¨an RPG I liked with older gameplay mechanics¨ which would mean anyone that has ever played and enjoyed any RPG is an old school hardcore RPG fan.  

I used to be proud to call my self an old school/hardcore RPG fan. Now I'm just surprised by how many people in this thread have misspelled Baldur's Gate.

@moilami, "We > them we might get what We want." This makes me more sad for gaming than any perceived "dumbing down" of a genre.

Being an old school RPGer is nothing to be proud of. It just a reminder for rookies to not try teach their daddy to f*k. 

[Tirigon]

I don´t think calling myself "oldschool" would be anything but ridiculous, with Oblivion, the Witcher and Dragon Age - Origins being my first RPGs.
Nevertheless, DA2 sucks and is way too streamlined.
You don´t need to be oldschool to appreciate a good RPG instead of a dumbed-down piece of crap.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

*ponder*

Ok, I like a wide variety of games. My favourites and addictions are (fantasy) RPGs, but they are by no means the only games I enjoy. I do lean heavily towards the fantasy genre and away from FPS, but that hasn't stopped me from playing and loving Bioshock, Portal, or even Leisure Suit Larry. I am a fan of many things, and if I enjoy a game I enjoy a game.

I judge RPGs more harshly than other genres, so in that sense perhaps I can be termed 'hardcore'. It annoys me sometimes to see 'RPG' slapped on anything that has the bare minimum of character creation, when I think what defines an RPG is more involved and complex than deciding whether your role in the game will be Warrior, Amazon or Wizard, and that criteria has become more demanding as technology has advanced and allowed games to include more options and potential player freedom (ie. choice) than they once did.

Now, an availability or lack or choice isn't going to stop me from enjoying a game. I enjoyed DA2. But not as much as Origins, and this is one of the reasons why:

DA:O had many choices that impacted Ferelden in, we're given the impression, significant ways. Dwarven king, Anvil, Dalish/Werewolves, Mages/Templars, Ashes, Anora/Alistair/Loghain, Morrigan's ritual, even the potential to sacrifice your own PC.

Then followed DA2, which had very LIMITED choices, and illusions of choice. I would give examples, but this is the No Spoilers forum, sorry. Suffice to say, there is a certain quest near the end of the game where you can choose not to help someone. Whether or not you assist, their plan comes to fruition. That's kinda like saying 'no' to Morrigan, then finding out she's having an OGB anyway. Why give us the choice if the choice isn't going to matter? To make the player feel important and in control? Then strip that feeling away by having the plot slap you in the face and say 'Haha! Fooled you! This is going to happen anyway and you won't even find out how!'?

It was kind of shocking comparing the two games, how much *freedom* you seemed to have in DA:O when it came to shaping the world into a dozen different scenarios, while DA2 the story felt more *rigid* and we were more spectator than anything, especially when it came to the Big Things.

Again, I liked DA2, but as a sequel to Origins I was expecting the same sort of roleplaying freedom the first game had given us (and a more human ending than two Monster Bosses, but that's another story). Had it not been a sequel I'd have enjoyed it much more, but I was comparing it to a game that had a very high Awesome Bar. Unfortunately the Awesome Button wasn't enough to reach it.

[Firky]

moilami wrote...
Being an old school RPGer is nothing to be proud of. It just a reminder for rookies to not try teach their daddy to f*k. 

*shrugs* You lost me there.

[Tommy6860]

Tirigon wrote...

I don´t think calling myself "oldschool" would be anything but ridiculous, with Oblivion, the Witcher and Dragon Age - Origins being my first RPGs.
Nevertheless, DA2 sucks and is way too streamlined.
You don´t need to be oldschool to appreciate a good RPG instead of a dumbed-down piece of crap.

I agree with this post. It is a matter of taste. But I do feel that RPGs fall into a particular style of gameplay, as it seems that just about anything can be called an RPG if it means getting sales, making them hybrids (action RPGs, etc) do not count in my book.

[Tommy6860]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

*ponder*

Ok, I like a wide variety of games. My favourites and addictions are (fantasy) RPGs, but they are by no means the only games I enjoy. I do lean heavily towards the fantasy genre and away from FPS, but that hasn't stopped me from playing and loving Bioshock, Portal, or even Leisure Suit Larry. I am a fan of many things, and if I enjoy a game I enjoy a game.

I judge RPGs more harshly than other genres, so in that sense perhaps I can be termed 'hardcore'. It annoys me sometimes to see 'RPG' slapped on anything that has the bare minimum of character creation, when I think what defines an RPG is more involved and complex than deciding whether your role in the game will be Warrior, Amazon or Wizard, and that criteria has become more demanding as technology has advanced and allowed games to include more options and potential player freedom (ie. choice) than they once did.

Now, an availability or lack or choice isn't going to stop me from enjoying a game. I enjoyed DA2. But not as much as Origins, and this is one of the reasons why:

DA:O had many choices that impacted Ferelden in, we're given the impression, significant ways. Dwarven king, Anvil, Dalish/Werewolves, Mages/Templars, Ashes, Anora/Alistair/Loghain, Morrigan's ritual, even the potential to sacrifice your own PC.

Then followed DA2, which had very LIMITED choices, and illusions of choice. I would give examples, but this is the No Spoilers forum, sorry. Suffice to say, there is a certain quest near the end of the game where you can choose not to help someone. Whether or not you assist, their plan comes to fruition. That's kinda like saying 'no' to Morrigan, then finding out she's having an OGB anyway. Why give us the choice if the choice isn't going to matter? To make the player feel important and in control? Then strip that feeling away by having the plot slap you in the face and say 'Haha! Fooled you! This is going to happen anyway and you won't even find out how!'?

It was kind of shocking comparing the two games, how much *freedom* you seemed to have in DA:O when it came to shaping the world into a dozen different scenarios, while DA2 the story felt more *rigid* and we were more spectator than anything, especially when it came to the Big Things.

Again, I liked DA2, but as a sequel to Origins I was expecting the same sort of roleplaying freedom the first game had given us (and a more human ending than two Monster Bosses, but that's another story). Had it not been a sequel I'd have enjoyed it much more, but I was comparing it to a game that had a very high Awesome Bar. Unfortunately the Awesome Button wasn't enough to reach it.

Excellent self-description on your feel for RPGs. Especailly when you said,

"I judge RPGs more harshly than other genres, so in that sense perhaps
I can be termed 'hardcore'. It annoys me sometimes to see 'RPG' slapped
on anything that has the bare minimum of character creation, when
I think what defines an RPG is more involved and complex than deciding
whether your role in the game will be Warrior, Amazon or Wizard, and
that criteria has become more demanding as technology has advanced and
allowed games to include more options and potential player freedom (ie.
choice) than they once did."

For a few weeks now I have been trying to come up with semething along the lines that fits my persona towards RPGs, and you just did that for me, TY very much, and I agree wholeheartedly with your position here.

[Firky]

I think that this is an excellent point, too, "and that criteria has become more demanding as technology has advanced and allowed games to include more options and potential player freedom (ie.
choice) than they once did." (And great post, SoL.)

Really, when it comes down to it, though, I'm having trouble coming up with too many examples of contemporary, comparable RPGs which actually evidence more meaningful, overtly player-driven choice. Certainly, Origins, with Morrigan's ritual etc. Open world RPGs are a different kettle of fish again. It's a good discussion.

I think that DAII was more an exercise in choice being realised in "powerless" ways; spoiler - class choice = you know what. (Personally, I like both overarching narrative style choices, and powerless.)

[Tommy6860]

Firky wrote...

Really, when it comes down to it, though, I'm having trouble coming up with too many examples of contemporary, comparable RPGs which actually evidence more meaningful, overtly player-driven choice. Certainly, Origins, with Morrigan's ritual etc. Open world RPGs are a different kettle of fish again. It's a good discussion.

As much as the hardcore traditional RPGers dislike Mass Effect (mainly because it has a shooter element), ME offered this very same criteria you describe and I was blown away. It showed me that a game with with sizeable shooter elements can be played as a true RPG. You can choose different endings and how your relationships turn out as you quest. These relationship tactics carried over very well into ME2, though ME2 relied more on action, than RPG elements. But still, it was a good follow up to ME since it carried the story over well, and you still had the effect of making the ending and character interactions vary greatly. In fact, outside of the weak boss at the end of ME2, I found it very
hard trying to get an ending where I wouldn't be sad or feel a deep sense of loss. I won't give
spoilers.

Origins is my all time *overall* favorite RPG (the ** is for emphasis). But, when it comes to *the* story, it doesn't touch Mass Effect, which IMO, is the best story in a game ever told and it is deep.