263 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

jds1bio wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Honestly, perhaps the issue here is the import feature? Bioware doesn't want to have the story to differ too drastically based on player choices because they plan on having those choices be (somewhat) reflected in future games. Radically different playthroughs make that incredibly difficult to do. Which, honestly, is one of the things I fear for ME3. With all the companions in ME2 slayable, how in depth will Bioware make their roles in 3?

Good question.  For some people, Shepard is already dead.

I understand the difficulty involved in keeping branching outcomes afloat.  But if you're going to have an import feature, I think it should represent 100% coverage of a player's possible prior-game outcomes.

From what I understand, dead Shepards cannot be imported.

Now, I understand the issues involved here, though...I was thinking that if the import feature wasn't used, Bioware would be more willing to create a truely branching story.

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

erynnar wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

rcollins1701 wrote...

I frankly don't understand all of this grumbling about choice having no effect or relevance in DA2. Choice is much more than who lives and who dies, who rules and who goes to jail. As one who has been role-playing since we rolled dice on wooden planks and elf was a class, the choices in role-playing deal primarily in how one plays their character. In DA2, the player had more control over how they played their respective Hawkes than any other video game RPG I've ever seen (in part because of the emoticons in the [dreaded] convo-wheel). I realize that because of glitches this isn't the case for some, but all of the choices I made in DA:O carried through when relevant as well.

Throughout DA2 you're provided with all kinds of choice. You choose not only the who lives and who dies, but also how you interact with everyone you encounter. And for those wanting big choices, deciding the future of Thedas at the end seems pretty relevant to me. The fact that you have to fight certain fights regardless of Hawke's choices doesn't mean your choices don't matter. If you're boiling down the relevancy of choice to who you combat, that cheapens the whole notion of choice in RPGs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought role-playing was more about playing a character than, "Do I fight the demon or the dragon? I have to fight both no matter what button I push? Zounds, I feel slighted! Let's blame EA!"

Let's put choice as we mean in Role-Playing Games into perspective, shall we?

How about choosing not to support either faction in DA2 and ending the hostilities?

I'd really like it if they stop portraying mages as emo's who cut themselves everytime some one destroy's their cure cd's.

If DAO's choices had only been about who I tried to get to bed me, friend me, or hate me and leave or kill, in between fighing endless waves of darkspawn marshmallow men, I would have been just as disappointed (maybe more so as DAO took over a hundred hours instead of about thirty to fifty) followed by my hand being forced to choose Loghain and have Alistair walk out regardless of how I had played or the illusion of choices I had made up until that point. That would have ticked me off more than DA2 has managed to do. 

That is pretty weak tea for an epic story. And the Hawke story was sold as epic even as the character is a rags to riches story, and by epic I don't mean two archdemons stapled together for a super Blight. So basically I get to piddle around with endless quests, few whose choices make an impact except in the smallest of ways, while the big huge one they blugeoned you over the head with repeatedly and really ratchet up at the end, makes no difference at all, none?  Um DAO had the illusion of choice too, but they did it classier, in a less ham fisted way...and as a bonus, they told me what those small illusions of choice did to the world they made me fall in love with. I would prefer the great and powerful Oz go back behind the curtain and give me the illusion of choice again, so that I can lose myself in their epic creativity.

You forgot to add onto the piddle comment. "Piddle around gobbing off your handsome friend" 

Just sayin', dear!

SNORT!!! My bad, "not so much a hero's journey as hero piddles around while gobbing off  his handsome friend."-Yatzee guy.

[Sabriana]

ROFL @ Erynnar

I like your comparison. I shall steal it and use it whenever I can.

I would like to add that I was utterly disappointed in the ending as well. Those time-skips were horrid to start with, but to make myself believe that in 3 years time the "Champion" sat on her hands while things escalated all around her was utterly impossible. What happened? Was she in a stasis-pod?

I succeeded in making myself play through Act I, trying to plug the most glaring plot-hole for mage Hawke on my own. My hopes raised in Act II, only to be utterly crushed by Act III. That fact played a big role in negating any good feelings I managed to build up during Act II.

[erynnar]

Dagiz wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Jorrkit wrote...

I actually liked the story, thought it paced really well, leading up to a satisfying crescendo... until the ending kicked me right in the balls. Boy, did that ending suck. I am not allowed to post spoilers here, obviously, but I can hardly begin to express my dissatisfaction with it.

It was wasn't it? I mean it would be if I had balls, which I don't...and no I don't mean that in an spineless sense you dirty birds, but an "I have ovaries" sense.  ROFL!  

What made me the maddest? They hit you over the head with this "big decision" ratched it up when a certain <spoiler> went <spoiler> and they bludgeon you with CHOOOSE!!! CHOOSE NOW!!!!  So you do, thinking, "well hells bells Mabel, they have been making this morally gray, or trying to....I guess I better choose." You do and...yeah...well no spoilers, we know what happens. A good swift kick into our sensitive parts.

okay that response made me laugh.  really loudly.  to the detriment of my sleeping child...who is now awake thanks to really crappy thin walls.  still worth the laught though.

OH noes! I am so sorry! But glad I made you laugh? Still sorry though.

[Moirnelithe]

This is one of the better threads on the forums, thank you jds1bio for taking the time to make that original post. There is just one thing I have to adress though. To me RPGs aren't about combat. I really dislike having to fight through hordes of enemies in order to continue the story or to get to a quest location. If there are options to avoid combat by persuasion/intimidation/stealth then I really couldn't be happier. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines did this very well I think. There were multiple solutions to solving a quest, by killing everything that moves in the area or by stealthing past them for example. I think you even got bonus xp for killing nobody at all under certain circumstances.

jds1bio wrote...
But instead of slashing the boards with cries of "rush job" and "betrayal" and "I've lost faith", how about letting BioWare know that fanbase is still there.  Let them know just how many people will translate into how many dollars that are on the line for the next game.  It's hard to take feedback seriously when it's made melodramatically.

Very well, let's make it simple then:


Dear Bioware,


If DA3 is like DA:O, or, better yet, to something that offers even more choice vs consequences then you will get my money. If DA3 is like DA2 you won't. 


Kind regards,

A gamer.

[Jorrkit]

@ erynnar: How very eloquent! I agree 100% with your (far more articulate) assessment (than mine). And might I express my sympathies for your sensitive parts, as well? They may not be such an easy target (low hanging fruit, so to speak), but I imagine having them smashed would hurt nearly as bad.

"Better role-playing," as this thread's creator suggested, would have been the solution for this problem IMO. How can I effectively role-play if the decision I would make is not even an option?

[erynnar]

Jorrkit wrote...

@ erynnar: How very eloquent! I agree 100% with your (far more articulate) assessment (than mine). And might I express my sympathies for your sensitive parts, as well? They may not be such an easy target (low hanging fruit, so to speak), but I imagine having them smashed would hurt nearly as bad.

"Better role-playing," as this thread's creator suggested, would have been the solution for this problem IMO. How can I effectively role-play if the decision I would make is not even an option?

And my sympathies to your own. Yes, low hanging, or high and hidden, it certainly did ....sting, shall we say?

[neppakyo]

erynnar wrote...

Jorrkit wrote...

@ erynnar: How very eloquent! I agree 100% with your (far more articulate) assessment (than mine). And might I express my sympathies for your sensitive parts, as well? They may not be such an easy target (low hanging fruit, so to speak), but I imagine having them smashed would hurt nearly as bad.

"Better role-playing," as this thread's creator suggested, would have been the solution for this problem IMO. How can I effectively role-play if the decision I would make is not even an option?

And my sympathies to your own. Yes, low hanging, or high and hidden, it certainly did ....sting, shall we say?

Its just the difference on how far the foot has to travel. :innocent:

[Tripedius]

The OP swings...... and misses. Just like every other person who tried to make sense of it all. BW made game that some liked and others didn't. End of story.

[AngryFrozenWater]

@Ronin2006: Thanks for a great post on the first page of this thread.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I will only answer a few bits of this, since this post is so chock-full of generalisations...

jds1bio wrote...

Now, disgruntled BioWare RPG fans are in their own corner because a) they've decided that companies bringing "their" games to a wider audience is bad,

No. Bringing RPGs to a wider audience is not bad. I'd love for more people to try RPGs and love them--but they are not for everyone, the same as Duke Nukem, Alien vs Predator, The Sims, Lemmings or Farmville isn't for everyone.

I don't protest getting a broader audience interested in RPGs. What I dislike is deliberately muddying the genre, attempting to turn it into a something that's not quite A and not quite B. It runs the risks of alienating the RPG fans who just want an RPG (and Bioware is GOOD at RPGs), and not satisfying the Action fans who just want an Action game.

Perhaps it's possible to find that perfect balance, that sweet spot marketting hunts for, and people will buy it in droves. But nothing satisfies everyone, and the people who wanted a traditional RPG or a traditional Action game will be left with a mishmash of genres that's either 'not enough talking/reading/RP' or 'not enough combat/awesome button.'

they can't decide what is really more important to them in RPGs - the combat or the role-playing.

Both have their place in RPGs, but it's not a matter of what's more important, it's all down to personal preference.

Have you ever played a tabletop pen and paper game? Some of them are ALL ABOUT combat, while others are ALL ABOUT the story. The combat games will tend to have some kind of point, a quest for instance, and the story games will still have monsters, villains and battle, but most Game Masters will tailor their games towards what the players find fun (or the players will join a campaign they know caters to their tastes).

Personally, I prefer role-playing over combat. I'm in it for the story and tend to find combat gets in the way of the that. But this is because of how combat is *handled* in most games, that is, it's usually pointless, meaningless random encounters that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to give us some action or gratuitous violence. I find that dull and unimaginative when it's done ad nauseum.

But until the disgruntled fans are willing to move beyond combat features to seek out role-playing, and BioWare is willing to move beyond an immutable story shape, they will remain huddled up in their respective corners without being able to meet.

I've played and loved many RPGs that had an immutable story shape. DA2 I enjoyed, but...it disappointed me as a sequel. I was expecting something better in every way, and while DA2 did have certain elements I thought were better than in DAO, it removed or cut back on other elements so that, in the end, it looked like RPG was being sacrificed in favour of Action.

I am not disgruntled. But I am hopeful that the calibre of RPG elements, choice and lore detail Bioware showed us in DAO have not been sacrificed forever in the name of courting gamers who don't *care* about such elements. I don't think their audience would grow...just become a different crowd. :/

[Joush]

I think you are assuming that people had a problem with the basic mechanics and difficulty. People dislike Dragon Age 2 because the story is an unfocused mess that never goes anywhere, some of the characters are unlikable but forced on you, environments are endlessly recycled with no variation, it's a buggy mess with promised features missing and combat seems cheap and silly, with foes teleporting in or repelling from bare ceilings.

[jds1bio]

Tripedius wrote...

The OP swings...... and misses. Just like every other person who tried to make sense of it all. BW made game that some liked and others didn't. End of story.

I'm not sure where you might agree and where you might disagree with my post, or other's posts.  I'd like to hear more about why you think the discussion begins and ends with only your statement..

[Tommy6860]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I will only answer a few bits of this, since this post is so chock-full of generalisations...

jds1bio wrote...

Now, disgruntled BioWare RPG fans are in their own corner because a) they've decided that companies bringing "their" games to a wider audience is bad,

No. Bringing RPGs to a wider audience is not bad. I'd love for more people to try RPGs and love them--but they are not for everyone, the same as Duke Nukem, Alien vs Predator, The Sims, Lemmings or Farmville isn't for everyone.

I don't protest getting a broader audience interested in RPGs. What I dislike is deliberately muddying the genre, attempting to turn it into a something that's not quite A and not quite B. It runs the risks of alienating the RPG fans who just want an RPG (and Bioware is GOOD at RPGs), and not satisfying the Action fans who just want an Action game.

Perhaps it's possible to find that perfect balance, that sweet spot marketting hunts for, and people will buy it in droves. But nothing satisfies everyone, and the people who wanted a traditional RPG or a traditional Action game will be left with a mishmash of genres that's either 'not enough talking/reading/RP' or 'not enough combat/awesome button.'

they can't decide what is really more important to them in RPGs - the combat or the role-playing.

Both have their place in RPGs, but it's not a matter of what's more important, it's all down to personal preference.

Have you ever played a tabletop pen and paper game? Some of them are ALL ABOUT combat, while others are ALL ABOUT the story. The combat games will tend to have some kind of point, a quest for instance, and the story games will still have monsters, villains and battle, but most Game Masters will tailor their games towards what the players find fun (or the players will join a campaign they know caters to their tastes).

Personally, I prefer role-playing over combat. I'm in it for the story and tend to find combat gets in the way of the that. But this is because of how combat is *handled* in most games, that is, it's usually pointless, meaningless random encounters that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to give us some action or gratuitous violence. I find that dull and unimaginative when it's done ad nauseum.

But until the disgruntled fans are willing to move beyond combat features to seek out role-playing, and BioWare is willing to move beyond an immutable story shape, they will remain huddled up in their respective corners without being able to meet.

I've played and loved many RPGs that had an immutable story shape. DA2 I enjoyed, but...it disappointed me as a sequel. I was expecting something better in every way, and while DA2 did have certain elements I thought were better than in DAO, it removed or cut back on other elements so that, in the end, it looked like RPG was being sacrificed in favour of Action.

I am not disgruntled. But I am hopeful that the calibre of RPG elements, choice and lore detail Bioware showed us in DAO have not been sacrificed forever in the name of courting gamers who don't *care* about such elements. I don't think their audience would grow...just become a different crowd. :/

Interesting points. I find myself fairly hardcore when it comes to RPGs. As you, I don't mind combat, as long as the combat is driven for the purpose of the story. Considering your taste, I find it odd you liked DA2 even somewhat. The only aspects I liked were; the character models were better, the mage powers were certainly nice (though I miss the charge up spells that made some magic battles in Origins tense when I had to charge that spell). And the armors/outfits were definitely great looking, maybe some of the best I have ever seen.

Outside of those aspects, I felt no connection to my companions, didn't feel my PC dialogue was mine and it felt abrupt and broken many times. The script in the game went from being decent to near atrocious. What bothered me most, was that so many elements of the game were copied from ME2, that it lost much of its originality, as I know Mass Effect among the best of them. I loved ME, but I didn't need to see DA copy its elements and mechanisms.

Edit; I forgot to add, the story. Could there be a more poiintless journey with nearly all of the quests having little to nothing to to do with the story to an end that was, "OK, what happened"?

Modifié par Tommy6860, 12 avril 2011 - 12:18 .

[jds1bio]

Joush wrote...

I think you are assuming that people had a problem with the basic mechanics and difficulty. People dislike Dragon Age 2 because the story is an unfocused mess that never goes anywhere, some of the characters are unlikable but forced on you, environments are endlessly recycled with no variation, it's a buggy mess with promised features missing and combat seems cheap and silly, with foes teleporting in or repelling from bare ceilings.

Your summarization notwithstanding, based on lots of feedback on the forums, people do have a problem with the basic mechanics and difficulty.  I've read complaints of too hack-and-slash, too button-mashy, too much spamming of abilities causing bodies to explodie in ridiculous fashion, only certain attributes are useful for certain classes, dialogue wheel too unwieldy when translating to actual spoken lines, etc.

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...

Joush wrote...

I think you are assuming that people had a problem with the basic mechanics and difficulty. People dislike Dragon Age 2 because the story is an unfocused mess that never goes anywhere, some of the characters are unlikable but forced on you, environments are endlessly recycled with no variation, it's a buggy mess with promised features missing and combat seems cheap and silly, with foes teleporting in or repelling from bare ceilings.

Your summarization notwithstanding, based on lots of feedback on the forums, people do have a problem with the basic mechanics and difficulty.  I've read complaints of too hack-and-slash, too button-mashy, too much spamming of abilities causing bodies to explodie in ridiculous fashion, only certain attributes are useful for certain classes, dialogue wheel too unwieldy when translating to actual spoken lines, etc.

They made a lot of changes so people dislike it for any number of reasons.

[Tommy6860]

I must say, that was nicely written and does a nice job at summarizing some differences. Your ME2 example was spot on. I loved that game, though ME was better for RPG elements, I thought my PC had a big impact on the choices I made..

Modifié par Tommy6860, 12 avril 2011 - 12:22 .

[AkiKishi]

Tommy6860 wrote...

I must say, that was nicely written and does a nice job at summarizing some differences. Your ME2 example was spot on. I loved that game, though ME was better for RPG elements, I thought my PC had a big impact on the choices I made..

Played Arrival yet? Because apparently that goes in a similar direction to DA2.

[Tommy6860]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I must say, that was nicely written and does a nice job at summarizing some differences. Your ME2 example was spot on. I loved that game, though ME was better for RPG elements, I thought my PC had a big impact on the choices I made..

Played Arrival yet? Because apparently that goes in a similar direction to DA2.

No, I did not. I listened to many of my friends and they know how much of a stickler I am. They told me I would really dislike it, and after the bad taste left in my mouth from that waste called 'Witch Hunt', I didn't give Arrival a second thought.

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I must say, that was nicely written and does a nice job at summarizing some differences. Your ME2 example was spot on. I loved that game, though ME was better for RPG elements, I thought my PC had a big impact on the choices I made..

Played Arrival yet? Because apparently that goes in a similar direction to DA2.

So I've heard.  Starting ME3 by putting Shepard in a scenario that some people think would never apply to their Shepard.  It wouldn't surprise me if the character developments in Lair Of The Shadow Broker ended up applying to everyone's ME3 game.
 
With Arrival (and possibly Lair Of The Shadow Broker), we are paying more and getting more story and combat, but less role-playing. 

My point about BW in the corner regarding role-playing within the main story and importing.  We are reminded that Shepard and Hawke are ultimately BW's characters and not really ours in any way except appearance, gender, combat class, and limited dialogue tone.  One day the only role we might get to play is an invitee to BW's corner.

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 avril 2011 - 12:51 .

[Yrkoon]

they can't decide what is really more important to them in RPGs - the combat or the role-playing.

Both have equal importance, and always have, regardless of whether you're playing a computer RPG or a pen & Paper RPG.  Remember, D&D has whole manuals devoted to just combat tables.    It also has whole manuals devoted to lore and character non-combat skills.

The two go hand and hand and I think you'll find that when a game   fails at one  or the other, RPG fans will start getting loud with their gripes, even  going so far as to argue that the game isn't an RPG at all.    This is normal and it makes sense.  RPGs are, at their very core, cerebral things.  That is to say,  there is supposed to be complexity and choice at all levels, including combat.

 To tie this into the topic, The problem with DA2 is that   the amount of choice is greatly reduced from what it was in DA:O.  And again, this reduction is at all levels, not just the story.  I mean sure,  DA2 is  clearly still an RPG, it's just not a very good one.  For example, your Hawke can be a female warrior.   Great.  But can she be a Dagger-dualwielding, female dalish elf warrior??    <-----that's 5 different levels of choice there.  a complexity avaliable to us in DA:O, but UNAVALIABLE to us in DA2.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 avril 2011 - 02:10 .

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I must say, that was nicely written and does a nice job at summarizing some differences. Your ME2 example was spot on. I loved that game, though ME was better for RPG elements, I thought my PC had a big impact on the choices I made..

Played Arrival yet? Because apparently that goes in a similar direction to DA2.

So I've heard.  Starting ME3 by putting Shepard in a scenario that some people think would never apply to their Shepard.  It wouldn't surprise me if the character developments in Lair Of The Shadow Broker ended up applying to everyone's ME3 game.
 
With Arrival (and possibly Lair Of The Shadow Broker), we are paying more and getting more story and combat, but less role-playing. 

My point about BW in the corner regarding role-playing within the main story and importing.  We are reminded that Shepard and Hawke are ultimately BW's characters and not really ours in any way except appearance, gender, combat class, and limited dialogue tone.  One day the only role we might get to play is an invitee to BW's corner.

If Bioware want to make "JRPGs" they should do just that. I'm not investing in a character just to have the writer dictate that it no longer matters because there will be a fixed outcome.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 12 avril 2011 - 02:11 .

[Mezinger]

I agree in so much as that Bioware's affinity for talking protagonists (which I like in and of themselves) as well as portable sequels ME1->ME2->ME2... DA2->DA3 (which I also like in and of themselves) has painted them into a corner where the only(?) feasible, economic way of making the games in fairly linear with one pre-described outcome. This is also why they do variations on the hero's story time and time again, you start with nothing, build fame, fortune an army and then win.

All that said I believe they did a better job hiding the linearity in DA:O and ME:1... by doing a few things:

1) Through the map system there was obvious choices about which order to do the main story line quests

2) Got to choose your allies (Werewolves, Golems etc.) Also choosing who and how to help when arriving on the scene

3) Choose revenge or forgiveness

4) Choose "easy way" out or not

5) Choose who becomes king/queen

6) Choose who becomes the Hero

IMO DA2 is weak in comparison to ME1 and DA:O because of it's linearity and lack of different story wide implications based on choices... also just a general lack of choices... "I'd kill that blood mage" nope I can't... Come on ME1 you got to kill the Krogan! "I'd kill those Qunari" oh nope I have to let them go. etc etc... a long painful list of lacking choices, and ultimately choices that don't affect the final outcome...

Bioware may indeed be in a corner with they're new voiced protagonist games, where importing prequels are key to return on investment of the sequel, but even in that corner they should have done better with DA2.

Modifié par Mezinger, 12 avril 2011 - 02:33 .

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...



If Bioware want to make "JRPGs" they
should do just that. I'm not investing in a character just to have the
writer dictate that it no longer matters because there will be a fixed
outcome.

I played FFXIII.  I enjoyed the story and presentation.  I enjoyed learning and using the battle system.  But the only two roles I ever thought I played were "Battle Tactician" and "Items Wrangler" (and I never bought, used, or upgraded a single item).  For me, this was a game of battles, not role-playing.  My gameplay had absolutely no effect on the six characters or the game world, other than unlocking the next custscene.  But I still had a good time.

I think a factor in this is what we expect out of "roles" these days.  For me, being an "elf" or "mage", or in FFXIII parlance a "synergist" or "sentinel" just doesn't cut it.  Today they are more indicative of a style of combat gameplay than an actual role.  At least to me "Hawke" has a chance of playing a role.

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 avril 2011 - 04:32 .

[jds1bio]

Mezinger wrote...

Bioware may indeed be in a corner with they're new voiced protagonist games, where importing prequels are key to return on investment of the sequel, but even in that corner they should have done better with DA2.

To me, having a voiced protagonist doesn't prevent roles from being played  The Witcher was interesting in that while you were always Geralt, your amnesia gave Geralt a chance to forge a new identity through an actual game quest, an identity the player could shape by words and actions.  It was almost like playing a meta-role on top of a role.  As for Hawke, your Hawke could still play matchmaker.  Or oppressor of elves.  Or family reuniter.  Or apostate (though the game never gave you the chance to be tempted by the spirits of the fade, that honor would go to your companions).  Those roles just don't come into contact with the main story. 

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 avril 2011 - 04:38 .