237 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

Harid wrote...

I don't recall people complaining about this in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

Truth be told, if not for the other problems in this game, I think people would shut the heck up about it.

Yeah i dont recall people complaining about bad graphics in Pong game back then 25 years ago>

Whats your point ?

[Fallstar]

Roxlimn wrote...

SirLogical:

We're discussing EXACTLY that point. Your objection is that it's unrealistic. Noted and already previously rebutted. Read back through the thread if you're really interested. If you just wanted to vent, well, that's okay too.

I was actually referring to the mark twain quotes and the discussion of templar hunters. Not your fault, but still not on topic. And I have read through the thread. I shall attempt to re-iterate: if you stab someone with a dagger, shoot them with an arrow,  they do not blow up. I understand you are trying to present a reasoned discussion, but I can't see how such childish graphics can possibly be defended.

[Roxlimn]

Pandman102:

Shrug. It comes down to what you're looking for in a game. To date, I have never seen a realistic fight depicted in a game. This is because actual fights are boring, repetitive, but brutal affairs. Sometimes, it's not even all that apparent why someone won a fight until after you examine the wounds.

I don't get why gamers would want to watch realistic fights, especially from what is supposedly an abstract combat representation. I don't know if even they even know what a real fight looks like given how they think DA:O is at all realistic.

I prefer theatrical presentations of fights. Much more entertaining (presumably because the fights are designed to be entertaining). The DA:O low key approach is one sensibility of presentation, but I don't think it translated all that well onscreen. The combats generally appeared too clean, too static, and generally noninteractive.

[Roxlimn]

SirLogical:

Mainly these two points:
1. Game combat is inherently an unrealistic representation of a fight. Having a graphic being unrealistic is a given.
2. It is an obvious way to mark enemy death on the field, allowing for effective player feedback on the combat event.

[Nerdage]

xkg wrote...

Harid wrote...

I don't recall people complaining about this in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

Truth be told, if not for the other problems in this game, I think people would shut the heck up about it.

Yeah i dont recall people complaining about bad graphics in Pong game back then 25 years ago>

Whats your point ?

Dragon Age: Spiritual successor to Pong? I missed that marketing drive...

Also, when pong was made all graphics needed to be was functional, so they weren't "bad".

[xkg]

nerdage wrote...

xkg wrote...

Harid wrote...

I don't recall people complaining about this in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

Truth be told, if not for the other problems in this game, I think people would shut the heck up about it.

Yeah i dont recall people complaining about bad graphics in Pong game back then 25 years ago>

Whats your point ?

Dragon Age: Spiritual successor to Pong? I missed that marketing drive...

Also, when pong was made all graphics needed to be was functional, so they weren't "bad".

Yes, so DAO was Spiritual successor to BG. Was there exploding bodies in DAO (besides rare cases like walking bomb) ?
So they decided to make DA2 even more "succesor" by implementing exploding bodies and at the same time they took off most important elements like armors for companions, huge areas to explore, interesting combat etc..

So i see. Exploding bodies (due this logic) was most exciting thing in BG. ok.

[Roxlimn]

xkg:

Er, pardon me, but what was the point of your rebuttal? It seemed like a valid line of reasoning to say that DA2 was simply borrowing from its ultimate ancestor, and your rebuttal felt like it just kind of dissolved midway through the argument.

So exploding graphic was deemed great in BG and re-adopted for DA2, and you see. And? I don't suppose you'd conceded it?

[Supreez]

Roxlimn:

I agree that when you form an argument against exploding bodies and do it in deference of DAO's realistic combat your kidding yourself. I thought DAO combat was horribly unrealistic looking and even would go so far that DA2 looked more realistic in some respects. However the taste that I've personally acquired against exploding bodies is a taste for realism. And for that reason(though i know the problems that accompany them) i did enjoy deathblows.

I don't think the quest for realism is a meaningless one. There is a reason most of us have moved on from paper and pencil and instead move around objects that increasingly look more like people in environments that increasingly look more like real places. Its simply more immersive to be in a setting that is somewhat recognizable. Of course in the end its a game and because its a game any logical person can say "Come on that's not realistic at all! look at this and this and this!" But in the end right now what some of us hope for is the most believability and coherence as possible. Basically the more the better. Its never gonna be real but give me the best possible scenario to suspend disbelief.

And that's why i don't like the spirit in which, i feel, exploding bodies falls into. Its this thing videogames do. They scream im proud to be a videogame now look at this "BAM!" and something crazy happens. I like those games, sometimes. I would argue though that being over the top for most people will never feel as impactful as something that's mimicking realty. But besides contributing to breaking the overall immersion of the game, for me, in its own little bubble of time its less impactful. Because i can't connect it to any images i have of what death looks like and in turn it doesn't register as "i just killed a man". I think that is a problem. And a problem that a Developer of a game where immersion is key, should do his/her best to remedy.

Part of it is coherence. If the setting was a setting where i expecting to see exploding bodies i might not care that much.

[byzantine horse]

Due to Varric or not, we can't really blame the graphical flaws of the game on him. Afterall, Varric is made by Bioware... Really, if they were to make a DLC that reduced gore (the blood is fine imo) I'd probably buy it.

[Harid]

I state that if not for all the other problems in the game, no one would complain about exploding bodies, and then xkg proceeds to list all the other problems in the game.

Continue yelling at your cloud, old man.

[xkg]

Harid wrote...

I state that if not for all the other problems in the game, no one would complain about exploding bodies, and then xkg proceeds to list all the other problems in the game.

Continue yelling at your cloud, old man.

nah, ill just go to take a nap inside my coffin

[FellowerOfOdin]

Soldier of Fortune 2 had better gore effects than DA:RtP. Just sayin'.

[Roxlimn]

Supreez:

One of the reasons I like theatrical combat is because I have had people die on me. They bled to death right under my hands while I was powerless to do anything. It is not a feeling you would want to have, trust me. Killing a man intentionally? I would not wish that on anyone. There's a reason why people who like killing need to be examined psychologically.

I think many gamers mistakenly take presentation for realism. The reason we move from PnP to models to cRPGs is because the presentation of the game becomes progressively better and better. In some cases, it's because the location looks more real, but in some cases (like combat), it's because it looks LESS real. Real combat is at once boring and shocking. No one really wants that.

In fact, PnP games are designed not around realistic combat but around theatrical combat - hitpoints themselves are a vanity around this concept. Hitpoints are defensive points that get depleted after which the hero is supposed to have taken some kind of dramatic mortal blow. Up until his hitpoints are gone, he isn't actually getting hit since a realistic hit of any kind not only has some possibility to be instantly fatal, but also usually imposes some kind of very unsexy condition - like a broken arm or a bleeding cut above the eyes.

So really, you want a theatrical representation just like I do, unless you're a completely bloodthirsty psychopath. What you differ in is not whether you want more reality or less, since all good combat presentation is inherently unrealistic. What you want is a particular sensibility of combat presentation.

I get that. I like some sensibility of combat more than others. It's totally cool to prefer a toned-down, less hyperkinetic presentation.

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

Supreez:

One of the reasons I like theatrical combat is because I have had people die on me. They bled to death right under my hands while I was powerless to do anything. It is not a feeling you would want to have, trust me. Killing a man intentionally? I would not wish that on anyone. There's a reason why people who like killing need to be examined psychologically.

I understand you viewpoint. And I also have seen my share of real dead bodies - as a medic.

But with their theatrical approach two things happen - at least for me. First, I feel like Roger Rabbit. And I don't want to be Roger Rabbit when roleplaying. I want to get away and get the feeling of being someone noteworthy, not someone ludicrous. Second, the gory explosions are outright apalling. You distance yourself from the kill and killing becomes something of a prank, like popping a balloon.

As far as theatrical presentation is concerned, they could do it differntly. Something groundbreaking, say, like leaving out the gore.

[Nerdage]

xkg wrote...Yes, so DAO was Spiritual successor to BG. Was there exploding bodies in DAO (besides rare cases like walking bomb) ?

"It wasn't in Origins, except when it was"? By that logic you could also say there weren't quests, characters or conversations in Origins (except, you know, when there were).

So they decided to make DA2 even more "succesor" by implementing exploding bodies

God forbid!

and at the same time they took off most important elements like armors for companions, huge areas to explore, interesting combat etc..

You still get to replace about half a dozen items on your compaions (not to mention all of their stats and abilities), I'm not sure why that's not enough. Replacing large, open maps with more focused ones was a design choice they made long ago, again: God forbid! Comabt not being interesting is opinion, what you find "interesting" others will call "slow".

So i see. Exploding bodies (due this logic) was most exciting thing in BG. ok.

Well no, the whole Bhaalspawn "reclaim your heritage" thing was probably more exciting, but if they copied that it would've been cheating. The elements they borrow don't have to be the most exciting ones from BG, they just give it flavour.

But I'm beginning to think it's no longer wise to stand in your way..

Modifié par nerdage, 16 avril 2011 - 05:00 .

[Roxlimn]

abaris:

I could hope Western companies would do that, but then they might get accused of going all "JRPG" on us.

Seriously, though, the obsession with gore is not something I really understand. I know Western devs seem to think it's the bees knees. Who knows why they think like that?

[Supreez]

Roxlimn wrote...

Supreez:

One of the reasons I like theatrical combat is because I have had people die on me. They bled to death right under my hands while I was powerless to do anything. It is not a feeling you would want to have, trust me. Killing a man intentionally? I would not wish that on anyone. There's a reason why people who like killing need to be examined psychologically.

Well jesus...i can totally understand that.

I do think were mincing words a bit.  But i get what your saying.  I understand that a totally real fight might look quite boring.  So there is a difference in what might look somewhat real and what is real.  This is what id like developers to captilize on.  What looks real.  Or a better word, believable.  Sort of get the physics right.  There is always to some extent gonna be a tradeoff of whats real and whats still fun.  But i think were agreeing so i'll stop there.

[xkg]

nerdage wrote...

xkg wrote...Yes, so DAO was Spiritual successor to BG. Was there exploding bodies in DAO (besides rare cases like walking bomb) ?

"It wasn't in Origins, except when it was"? By that logic you could also say there weren't quests, characters or conversations in Origins (except, you know, when there were).

So they decided to make DA2 even more "succesor" by implementing exploding bodies

God forbid!

and at the same time they took off most important elements like armors for companions, huge areas to explore, interesting combat etc..

You still get to replace about half a dozen items on your compaions (not to mention all of their stats and abilities), I'm not sure why that's not enough. Replacing large, open maps with more focused ones was a design choice they made long ago, again: God forbid! Comabt not being interesting is opinion, what you find "interesting" others will call "slow".

So i see. Exploding bodies (due this logic) was most exciting thing in BG. ok.

Well no, the whole Bhaalspawn "reclaim your heritage" thing was probably more exciting, but if they copied that it would've been cheating. The elements they borrow don't have to be the most exciting ones from BG, they just give it flavour.

But I'm beginning to think it's no longer wise to stand in your way..

ok ill rewrite it for YOU if you pretend to be so dense so you cant understand it :

Yes, so DAO was Spiritual successor to BG. Was there exploding bodies in DAO everytime after simple attack,  dagger stab, arrow hit, shield bash ... besides rare cases like walking bomb where it was more logic

"You still get to replace about half a dozen items on your compaions (not to mention all of their stats and abilities), I'm not sure why that's not enough"

You can go play shooter dont hesitate. you still get to replace weapons if you like.
For me it isnt enough thats why i am playing RPG games.

" open maps with more focused ones "

do you mean generic copy-paste dungeon#323 ?
and whole Kirkwall is so much exciting full of life.
Yes all maps are so much more "focused now".

Modifié par xkg, 16 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[Mecher3k]

Just ignore Roxlimn, I've read more then enough of his posts to know he's either a troll. Or the worst person ever to argue for something.

All he does is twist peoples words and use strawmen arguments.

[Supreez]

Roxlimn wrote...


I could hope Western companies would do that, but then they might get accused of going all "JRPG" on us.

How do you feel about JRPG's?

[Roxlimn]

I can't make such a broad generalization. I like some JRPGs. I dislike others. It depends on the game in question. Some games in some series I like, other games in the same series, I don't. I liked Suikoden 2 and 3, and Wild Arms 3 and 4. Final Fantasy 2 through 4, and 7, from what I recall.

[Supreez]

Roxlimn wrote...

I can't make such a broad generalization. I like some JRPGs. I dislike others. It depends on the game in question. Some games in some series I like, other games in the same series, I don't. I liked Suikoden 2 and 3, and Wild Arms 3 and 4. Final Fantasy 2 through 4, and 7, from what I recall.

I was just asking cause im thinking about trying some Jrpgs and was wondering what to try.  I like whimsical **** too.

[Roxlimn]

Ah. Well then, if you liked the tactical stuff that's turn-based, I might recommend Tactics Ogre on the PSP, or Final Fantasy Tactics A2 on the DS. Barring that, you could try the old Final Fantasies or the Dragon Quests. Dragon Quest VI might be available on DS, and IX definitely is.

If you have to have PC, FF7 is the last one I can recommend.

Tales of Vesperia is on sale at XBLA, and Lost Odyssey I've heard good things about.

I must warn you that JRPGs are absolutely scripted. You rarely make character choices and what choices you make are usually subverted anyway. Essentially, you're playing a tactical game to advance a straightforward story. With that caveat, I say go get 'em!

[Warheadz]

Roxlimn wrote...

Ah. Well then, if you liked the tactical stuff that's turn-based, I might recommend Tactics Ogre on the PSP, or Final Fantasy Tactics A2 on the DS. Barring that, you could try the old Final Fantasies or the Dragon Quests. Dragon Quest VI might be available on DS, and IX definitely is.

If you have to have PC, FF7 is the last one I can recommend.

Tales of Vesperia is on sale at XBLA, and Lost Odyssey I've heard good things about.

I must warn you that JRPGs are absolutely scripted. You rarely make character choices and what choices you make are usually subverted anyway. Essentially, you're playing a tactical game to advance a straightforward story. With that caveat, I say go get 'em!

I bought Lost Odyssey as a used game, and I didn't like it. It has some good ideas: The storyline is about an immortal person, and the combat system/skill system adds a couple of things to the traditional JRPG thing. But the game is incredibly linear, and incredibly dull. The story holds no surprises, and it holds an unnecessary amount of dialog. It would be fine, if it were interesting, but it's really, really, dull and pointless talk.

[Roxlimn]

Hehe. Unfortunately, that's one of the things JRPGs tend to do: they tend to collapse under the weight of their own convoluted stories and agendas. It's interesting to the right people, but I confess that I never drummed up enough interest to even play LO. Of course, some people also say FF7 is boring. Those guys are obviously delusional.

If nothing else, no bodies explode in FF7.