966 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

Kilshrek wrote...

Actually I think I have the summary here.

RPG players wanting it to be more RPG is wrong.

Non-RPG players wanting it to be less RPG is right.

Equation solved.

Yep, that seems to be it.

[Sabariel]

In the balance of production, we realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories, content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

...That "some" just kills me.

[Yrkoon]

Guliver wrote...
Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

Actually, for me, a good game needs to be challenging. It needs to be challenging enough so that I'm *still* trying to master it after a few playthroughs. If a game is simple, I probably won't find it fun after, say, the 3rd playthrough... It'll probably be boring at that point.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 avril 2011 - 11:36 .

[Edli]

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

[mdugger12]

ejoslin wrote...

I never said that DA2 was GoW.  That's a strawman. They did make more of an action game with DA2, however.

I don't find shooters at ALL intuitive or easy.  I cannot grab a controller and just jump in (and I've tried -- since I'm not used to shooters they're not easy for me).  OTOH, I find RPGs incredibly easy to jump into.  Most start with a tutorial anyway, and in the case of DAO, it's a bit before you even begin fighting anyway.  

This is what is frustrating to me, as an RPG fan.  There are very VERY few quality RPGs out, and most of them are older.  And as a woman who likes playing a woman in games, they're even more rare.  DAO was so successful that it drew in people who normally don't play RPGs.  And many of those people want the game to be more like an action game, and are quite vocal about it.  And they're the ones who are listened to, not the RPG fans -- the core audience.

What's wrong with making a fantastic RPG that is so good that people who normally don't play RPGs buy it -- like DAO was.  Why don't the people who normally don't play RPGs but liked DAO accept that some of the things they don't like about it is because it's not a genre they prefer?  Why say that the RPG fans are wrong in wanting a sequel to one of the best RPGs ever made to be a true sequel retaining the same RPG elements?

Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that you were calling DA2 GoW. My point is they didn't make it a pure action game. They just added more action to it.

I'm one of the people that wasn't a huge fan of RPGs but like DA:O, even though it wasn't made for a console. lol I still remember being like 10 hours into my first playthrough ever as a rogue before I realized that I didn't have to actually push the attack button for every slash. There were things about the game that irked me  but it didn't matter, the story and characters sucked me in.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a great RPG. DA:O was a love letter to old school fans. But whats wrong with making the game more digestible for new fans? Why can they share in the experience? Is and extra set of armor for a companion or a codex entry about a trash piece of loot all RPGs really are about?

[Warheadz]

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

I myself need to have some challenge if I want to have fun. If you always succeed, there is no joy in it. But if you fail, you can rise and try once more. And when you get it right, it's rewarding and makes you feel (or at least me) more badass than when I plow my way through everything.

Of course, there are limits. If something isn't optional, having to try more than 4 times will be extremely frustrating.

[DeathStroke TZA]

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

Sorry one last post..
Another QFT for Edli! Bolded part is where the sentence truly shines. I want to be your friend.

[Miashi]

mdugger12 wrote...
They didn't truly take anything away from the game by making it more accessible.

What? DA:2 has been stripped of about everything in every aspect. I'll just keep it very short for you - lore elements you learn from NPCs in DA:2 is nowhere NEAR what DA:O npcs have to offer about the Dragon Ages universe. I could endlessly go on on this.

[AkiKishi]

Warheadz wrote...

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

I myself need to have some challenge if I want to have fun. If you always succeed, there is no joy in it. But if you fail, you can rise and try once more. And when you get it right, it's rewarding and makes you feel (or at least me) more badass than when I plow my way through everything.

Of course, there are limits. If something isn't optional, having to try more than 4 times will be extremely frustrating.

It varies.First time I played Killzone 3 I wanted to experience the story  so I stuck it on rookie. Having seen the story and got the hang of the game play I put it up to the hardest level to get the trophies.
Dying a couple of times each level really spoils the story flow , where as if you are playing for the challenge learning and overcoming is the "fun" part.

I died about 40 times against Radic in KZ2 hard. But that just made it all the more satisfying when I finally took him down.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 15 avril 2011 - 11:45 .

[PlumPaul93]

Kilshrek wrote...

Actually I think I have the summary here.

RPG players wanting it to be more RPG is wrong.

Non-RPG players wanting it to be less RPG is right.

Equation solved.

This is probably true although it baffles me why people would play an RPG and want less RPG.

[mdugger12]

Miashi wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...
They didn't truly take anything away from the game by making it more accessible.

What? DA:2 has been stripped of about everything in every aspect. I'll just keep it very short for you - lore elements you learn from NPCs in DA:2 is nowhere NEAR what DA:O npcs have to offer about the Dragon Ages universe. I could endlessly go on on this.

Really? There's no need to go endlessly but if you can expand on your statement about lore elements. How much did you expect the sequel to add? DA:O had to get you familiar with the universe so don't you think it's unfair to expect DA 2 to give you more?

[Bostur]

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

Chess is about moving wood around. You move a piece and something awesome happens. There's nothing challenging about moving a few pieces of wood.

Maybe I should try to market the idea of "Awesome Chess". With none of the tedium and learning curve of the old, dull, outdated version of chess.

Modifié par Bostur, 15 avril 2011 - 11:49 .

[Miashi]

mdugger12 wrote...

Miashi wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...
They didn't truly take anything away from the game by making it more accessible.

What? DA:2 has been stripped of about everything in every aspect. I'll just keep it very short for you - lore elements you learn from NPCs in DA:2 is nowhere NEAR what DA:O npcs have to offer about the Dragon Ages universe. I could endlessly go on on this.

Really? There's no need to go endlessly but if you can expand on your statement about lore elements. How much did you expect the sequel to add? DA:O had to get you familiar with the universe so don't you think it's unfair to expect DA 2 to give you more?

DA:2 was supposed to be more accessible. That means DA:2 was to attract new players that aren't familiar with the Dragon Age : Origins game.

If, hypothetically, I never played Dragon Age Origins but I did play Dragon Age 2, and someone asked me lore element questions, I'd know far less from DA:2 than DA:O. That's what I mean by more. MORE, not NEW.

Modifié par Miashi, 15 avril 2011 - 11:58 .

[ejoslin]

mdugger12 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I never said that DA2 was GoW.  That's a strawman. They did make more of an action game with DA2, however.

I don't find shooters at ALL intuitive or easy.  I cannot grab a controller and just jump in (and I've tried -- since I'm not used to shooters they're not easy for me).  OTOH, I find RPGs incredibly easy to jump into.  Most start with a tutorial anyway, and in the case of DAO, it's a bit before you even begin fighting anyway.  

This is what is frustrating to me, as an RPG fan.  There are very VERY few quality RPGs out, and most of them are older.  And as a woman who likes playing a woman in games, they're even more rare.  DAO was so successful that it drew in people who normally don't play RPGs.  And many of those people want the game to be more like an action game, and are quite vocal about it.  And they're the ones who are listened to, not the RPG fans -- the core audience.

What's wrong with making a fantastic RPG that is so good that people who normally don't play RPGs buy it -- like DAO was.  Why don't the people who normally don't play RPGs but liked DAO accept that some of the things they don't like about it is because it's not a genre they prefer?  Why say that the RPG fans are wrong in wanting a sequel to one of the best RPGs ever made to be a true sequel retaining the same RPG elements?

Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that you were calling DA2 GoW. My point is they didn't make it a pure action game. They just added more action to it.

I'm one of the people that wasn't a huge fan of RPGs but like DA:O, even though it wasn't made for a console. lol I still remember being like 10 hours into my first playthrough ever as a rogue before I realized that I didn't have to actually push the attack button for every slash. There were things about the game that irked me  but it didn't matter, the story and characters sucked me in.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a great RPG. DA:O was a love letter to old school fans. But whats wrong with making the game more digestible for new fans? Why can they share in the experience? Is and extra set of armor for a companion or a codex entry about a trash piece of loot all RPGs really are about?

The same thing that would be wrong with watering down ANY genre to make it more accessible to people who prefer other genres.  People who prefer RPGs want to play RPGs.  People who prefer action games want to play action games.  People who prefer shooters want to play shooters.  Hybrids generally do not end up very successful. 

DAO was successful because it was an amazing RPG.  Some people will prefer DA2 because they're not huge fans of RPGs or they prefer action games.  Or for whatever reason.  It really doesn't look like they widened their audience by making DA2 into an action-rpg.  In fact, it looks like they've alienated a lot of their core audience AND people who normally don't by RPGs but who liked DAO.

Rebuilding the game made them cut too many corners in other places.  

Modifié par ejoslin, 15 avril 2011 - 12:00 .

[Tommy6860]

Otterwarden wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

But he's right, some critics can't cope with change.  Some can only frame things in terms of Call-Of-Duty or World-Of-Warcraft.  Some can only give each game the same exact amount of playtime before calling it a review.  Some go out of their way to echo (and then spar with afterwards) their own comment forums just to get more hits.  And I think the older the critic, the worse it seems. Too many life changes in the span of 5 or 10 years can make you long for some constants in your life, and what better place to look for constancy than one of your favorite things - videogaming.  Except videogaming (and the demographic that participates) has always been fluid, not a set-in-stone solid.

And some can only see this as old players unable to let go with what they know...

This forum has been replete with very specific criticisms that give robust arguments for why DA2 failed to satisfy and yet, in certain eyes, it always boils down to the old guard's inability to move on from BG. 

Perhaps, as I am one of those "old guards". I don't take exception to your comment, but my hardcore stance has never been one for intransigence, but rather consistency to the genre of RPGs. Sooner or later, the spectrum of the definition to what is an RPG is going to have to give, and DA2, IMO, has gone beyond that and that is what bothers me most. This is where I think that most of the "old guard" stop (and the extreme stop at games like ME), if going by the tolerance of the changes.

As long as the game's genre classification at least adheres to certain RPG parameters, then I can enjoy them. But the defining line is getting blurred with each release of new RPGs, IMO. I very much loved Mass Effect, and I really liked Mass Effect 2, but to a lesser degree. I also like Fallouts 1, 2 and 3 and Oblivion, to a lesser degree, because they all played like RPGs. The extreme "old guard" that cannot tolerate the latter games I mentioned could be called the "red guard" of cRPGs. Most I have talked to (especailly my gaming friends from the late 70s and early 80s) won't except shooter elements (as  an example) or contemporary/futuristic settings, as they insist it has to be D&D style with medeival lore. Even a few of them won't touch any PC game, even if it is a true blue cRPG D&D style game; I am not that obstinate. But, I admit at the same time, that it is my first preference in a cRPG, and if those lore types were available as new releases, like a BG facsimile, etc, then I would pass on those latter mentionables for the BGs for sure..

[Aramintai]

I can see where this is going - DA3 will be an interactive movie with occasional usage of Button Awesome for QTE. That would surely be more accessible for casual gamers. And if you don't like it play it on hard - there are more combinations of Button Awesome to use. 

Yes, it was a joke on Heavy Rain.

Modifié par Aramintai, 15 avril 2011 - 12:13 .

[Kilshrek]

Bostur wrote...

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

Chess is about moving wood around. You move a piece and something awesome happens. There's nothing challenging about moving a few pieces of wood.

Maybe I should try to market the idea of "Awesome Chess". With none of the tedium and learning curve of the old, dull, outdated version of chess.

Be careful when your pawn captures a bigger piece. Some of the splinters go really deep.

[mdugger12]

ejoslin wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I never said that DA2 was GoW.  That's a strawman. They did make more of an action game with DA2, however.

I don't find shooters at ALL intuitive or easy.  I cannot grab a controller and just jump in (and I've tried -- since I'm not used to shooters they're not easy for me).  OTOH, I find RPGs incredibly easy to jump into.  Most start with a tutorial anyway, and in the case of DAO, it's a bit before you even begin fighting anyway.  

This is what is frustrating to me, as an RPG fan.  There are very VERY few quality RPGs out, and most of them are older.  And as a woman who likes playing a woman in games, they're even more rare.  DAO was so successful that it drew in people who normally don't play RPGs.  And many of those people want the game to be more like an action game, and are quite vocal about it.  And they're the ones who are listened to, not the RPG fans -- the core audience.

What's wrong with making a fantastic RPG that is so good that people who normally don't play RPGs buy it -- like DAO was.  Why don't the people who normally don't play RPGs but liked DAO accept that some of the things they don't like about it is because it's not a genre they prefer?  Why say that the RPG fans are wrong in wanting a sequel to one of the best RPGs ever made to be a true sequel retaining the same RPG elements?

Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that you were calling DA2 GoW. My point is they didn't make it a pure action game. They just added more action to it.

I'm one of the people that wasn't a huge fan of RPGs but like DA:O, even though it wasn't made for a console. lol I still remember being like 10 hours into my first playthrough ever as a rogue before I realized that I didn't have to actually push the attack button for every slash. There were things about the game that irked me  but it didn't matter, the story and characters sucked me in.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a great RPG. DA:O was a love letter to old school fans. But whats wrong with making the game more digestible for new fans? Why can they share in the experience? Is and extra set of armor for a companion or a codex entry about a trash piece of loot all RPGs really are about?

The same thing that would be wrong with watering down ANY genre to make it more accessible to people who prefer other genres.  People who prefer RPGs want to play RPGs.  People who prefer action games want to play action games.  People who prefer shooters want to play shooters.  Hybrids generally do not end up very successful. 

DAO was successful because it was an amazing RPG.  Some people will prefer DA2 because they're not huge fans of RPGs or they prefer action games.  That doesn't mean that there are MORE people who prefer DA2 (in fact, looking at sales and critical reviews, it looks like fewer people are enjoying it).

I've never tried to say that you or anyone else that doesn't like DA2 is wrong and I'm not going to start now. Fans by nature have strong feelings for the object of their affection. Changes usually don't go over well and neither does "going mainstream".

I never pay much attention to sales figures or critical reviews. And especially when it comes to sales I'm sure RPG fans don't use figures to tell them if a game is good or not.

There were a lot of great things about DA:O that I fell in love with. But I didn't see any of those things missing from DA 2. That doesn't mean things you love about the first aren't in the second. But when I ask for anybody to explain what feature is in DA:O that isn't in DA2 but was necessary to the experience of the first game, I never get an answer.

[Miashi]

Aramintai wrote...

I can see where this is going - DA3 will be an interactive movie with occasional usage of Button Awesome for QTE. That would surely be more accessible for casual gamers.

Too bad that concept existed for more than a decade. It's called Dragon's Lair :T

[Kilshrek]

Aramintai wrote...

I can see where this is going - DA3 will be an interactive movie with occasional usage of Button Awesome for QTE. That would surely be more accessible for casual gamers.

Asura's Wrath is this game, apparently. Kotaku explores it a little here, although we know what to expect from the outset with this game. I may just get it for some angry face, and angry growl. There simply isn't enough angry.

[Miashi]

mdugger12 wrote...
There were a lot of great things about DA:O that I fell in love with. But I didn't see any of those things missing from DA 2. That doesn't mean things you love about the first aren't in the second. But when I ask for anybody to explain what feature is in DA:O that isn't in DA2 but was necessary to the experience of the first game, I never get an answer.

I gave you one and you decided to ignore it. Some players do play for lore value. I'm the players that will go talk to every single NPC in each zone and depletes all conversation possible until I continue.

[Guliver]

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

While I agree with your post I still find it silly that you compare a computer game with chess.

Don't know about you but I never found any of Dragon Age games challenging.
If you think that DA:O with it's battle mages and supernatural rogues provided any challenge you must be living in  alternate universe.

Awakening was even a bigger let down. New equipment gave huge stats and enemies were incredibly easy. 

Dragon Age 2 on Nightmare is definetly more challenging then DA:O/A ever was. Yes, there are some parts of the game were you just had to run in circles for half an hour while you kill some elite boss or bunch of enemies but there were also parts of the game were you had to strategicly figure out where to position your characters, which skills to use exactly at  which time and what companions to take with you so you don't kill each eather with AoE skills.

I remember fighting Meredith on my first playthrough. She killed Aveline with full hp in one shot. Killed her on normal at my second playthrough just to end it faster so I can start my third playthrough with Warrior Pro-Templar Male Hawke  This time im going to try her on Nightmare.

Archdemon was nothing compared to her, I just spammed Balista and hp pots and waited till it died.
Even High Dragon of DA:O was easier then in DA2.

I don't understand why so many ppl complain about this game, because it didn't met your expectations? Well, you can't have everything..
Bioware did a good work on this game, it could be better but unfortunetly it isn't, so maybe it's time you quit hating this game and instead just play it and enjoy it.

Anyway, it can't be that bad as some of you say. Compared to other rpgs it's definetly one of the best rpgs out there.

Modifié par Guliver, 15 avril 2011 - 12:17 .

[mdugger12]

Aramintai wrote...

I can see where this is going - DA3 will be an interactive movie with occasional usage of Button Awesome for QTE. That would surely be more accessible for casual gamers.

Wow. So pausing the game, entering commands, then watching them play out is less like an interactive movie? Right.

[Tommy6860]

The Angry One wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

The Witcher portrays a much darker world, which is probably a little more truthful to medieval Europe. Females are treated as sub-class citizens. They are constantly beaten and raped, cannot walk the streets at night, only appear to work in low class jobs or in servitude to males, and generally do not get involved in conflicts (there are a few notable females who are warriors, mostly elves though). But then you have Triss, and other female sorceresses, who wield considerable power.

Yes well, frankly the Witcher revels in it's objectification of women a little too much. Yes I mean the stupid card thing. No I will never let that go.
And while some call fantasy settings aping medieval Europe down to the misogyny "gritty", I call it boring. There's already a flood of games where you play the buff male hero anyway. I for one am no longer in a position to care about them.

Hmm, I can agree with this, but I really didn't look at the style of the game as such when played it through the 3 times I did. I'll admit this is very obvious, so it may lend to marketing to a certain "male" mindset, considering the fact the PC is strictly a well built male, though not incredbily good looking. There still are so few games (and most are mainly console) where a female is the PC, but they are still the objectified (Bayonetta for example was heavily sexualized).

This is one of the reasons why I liked the ability to select my gender (aside from wanting to choose a different race as well), since the "objectification" you noted, is something that just doesn't cross my mind and is soemwhat avoided in the mindset, but made apparent in single gendered PC only games.

[mdugger12]

Miashi wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...
There were a lot of great things about DA:O that I fell in love with. But I didn't see any of those things missing from DA 2. That doesn't mean things you love about the first aren't in the second. But when I ask for anybody to explain what feature is in DA:O that isn't in DA2 but was necessary to the experience of the first game, I never get an answer.

I gave you one and you decided to ignore it. Some players do play for lore value. I'm the players that will go talk to every single NPC in each zone and depletes all conversation possible until I continue.

But you can talk to NPCs in this game as well. So it isn't exactly gone.