843 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yup, I've been around since BG1, but since I've always played them as third person games the introduction of a VA and paraphrase don't seem like a big deal to me and something of a natural step forward.  In fact, if I had never started posting on or reading the BSN, it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone thought otherwise. The fact that many simply assume that such changes could only possibly appeal to some "new" audience implies that those who treated such games as a first person narrative may not have realized that there has always been another way to approach Bioware games either.  That isn't to dismiss that playstyle, far from it, only that there have always been two valid ways to play and that for one of them the introduction of a VA/paraphrase/cinematics isn't as big a change as it would be to the other one.

Fact is Bioware's recent offerings are polarizing because they basically made a choice. That choice was to make the third person experience explicit. This is usually associated with the "cinematic" buzzword. That's why you get some people who really love it (third person) and some people who really hate it (first person) and not a lot of middle ground - which is what polarizing means - because Bioware has effectively chosen a playstyle to endorse with their feature changes after implicitly supporting both.

Are you implying some people (first person-majority of Elder Scroll Fans) should leave Bioware games alone since it doesn't cater to their perception? 

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Are you implying some people (first person-majority of Elder Scroll Fans) should leave Bioware games alone since it doesn't cater to their perception? 

No, I'm simply attempting to describe the situation, not making any specific recommendations. 

That being said, Bethesda and Bioware make very different games and have for some time.  I think they both have their place for what they are and what they try to do.  I'm not sure one could really incorporate what the other is best at without compromising something important along the way.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 03:13 .

[Roxlimn]

I think it's much simpler than that. Many fans expected and wanted DA:O : Again. They got a fundamentally different game, and they're judging it on the basis on how like DA:O it is, which it isn't.

Gamers who don't make the comparison or who find the comparison in favor of DA2 like it. People who liked DA:O more don't like it. It's really very simple.

[Alex Kershaw]

I'm 17 and DAO is my favourite game ever, so I disagree that they're all 40+...

[upsettingshorts]

But my point is that to some DAO players, DA2 isn't fundamentally different at all. And among those people you're going to find many of the folks who really enjoy it.

The issue is, people disagree about what fundamentally makes a Bioware game good and worth playing. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 03:22 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

I'm 17 and DAO is my favourite game ever, so I disagree that they're all 40+...

DA2 is rated 18+ game you shouldn't be playing it.

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

I think it's much simpler than that. Many fans expected and wanted DA:O : Again. They got a fundamentally different game, and they're judging it on the basis on how like DA:O it is, which it isn't.

Even if I wouldn't judge it on the basis of DAO, I wouldn't like it. The combat alone makes sure of that. If I wanted to play Prince of Persia, I would buy Prince of Persia.

Simply said, the jump and run concept doesn't cut it for me. And if that wasn't enough, the lack of companion customization takes care of the rest. I didn't even need to know what the story is about, since the whole atmosphere isn't my cup of tea.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The issue is, people disagree about what fundamentally makes a Bioware game good and worth playing. 

No, the issue is, what makes any game good and worth playing.

Modifié par abaris, 17 avril 2011 - 03:31 .

[xScarecrowX]

I agree with the OP, but something was bothering me while I read it. I'm a 18 year old female who considers herself, by your definition of the word, a "Hard-core" gamer. I loved the way Origins played, but I never played it on PC, only on PS3. As much as DA2 changed from Origins, I still thought it was a great game and never even considered that I shouldn't have preordered it and would never dream of selling it. I love both games, although if someone told me to jump infront of a bullet for one, it would be Origins every time. So all in all, I agree with you on Bioware trying to drift towards a new audience and at the same time still trying to get the hard-cores to buy. They need to at least choose a direction. By the way, I think you're definition of hard-core could use some revising.

Modifié par xScarecrowX, 17 avril 2011 - 03:33 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yup, I've been around since BG1, but since I've always played them as third person games the introduction of a VA and paraphrase don't seem like a big deal to me and something of a natural step forward.  In fact, if I had never started posting on or reading the BSN, it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone thought otherwise. The fact that many simply assume that such changes could only possibly appeal to some "new" audience implies that those who treated such games as a first person narrative may not have realized that there has always been another way to approach Bioware games either.  That isn't to dismiss that playstyle, far from it, only that there have always been two valid ways to play and that for one of them the introduction of a VA/paraphrase/cinematics isn't as big a change as it would be to the other one.

Fact is Bioware's recent offerings are polarizing because they basically made a choice. That choice was to make the third person experience explicit. This is usually associated with the "cinematic" buzzword. That's why you get some people who really love it (third person) and some people who really hate it (first person) and not a lot of middle ground - which is what polarizing means - because Bioware has effectively chosen a playstyle to endorse with their feature changes after implicitly supporting both.

The nails head has been hit people. Seriously, I think this sums up the major factor at work in regards to the poliarized opinions, although obviously there are some who don't fit into this explanation as well.

I'm a fan of both playstyles, but have always played BioWare games as third person and I see many of the problems people have with DA2 as improvements. With that said there is no excusing some of the issues that have dragged peoples perception of it down somewhat, the recycled areas are excessive this time around, some corners have obviously been cut here and there, most notably for me in regards to the lack of female Dwarves for instance. The thing is, whereas some people add those problems to an already overflowing list of complaints that cause them to post extremely angry messages around these boards and claim the game is 'mediocre at best', I meanwhile just find they detract from an otherwise fantastic game causing it to fall short of being one of the best.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

I think Bioware has staked out its creative direction--they're moving into RPG's with more interactive, action-oriented combat. The corner-cutting so rampant in DA2 is actually forestalling the core debate here. I believe that DA3 will be a much better treatment of the DA2 style. If I'm right, we'll see the action-RPG game with better production values. In fact, the bug fixes and patching now are essentially development for DA3, now that I think about it.

A well-produced DA2 may just be the worst nightmare of the "hardcore RPG fan". Many of the complaints about DA2 have nothing to do with things like isometric perspective and traditional RPG combat. I think it's completely plausible that Bioware could turn out an excellent DA3 product that gets glowing (legitimate) reviews all around and still doesn't please those who consider themselves the true RPG players.

That's when the alienation of the hardcores begins. There's still room for optimism now, since DA2 is facing criticism and still might be considered a commercial failure, depending on the calculus one chooses to use for that. But there's nowhere left to hide if DA3 is a great game that sells well and pleases a wide variety of fans, all without measuring up as an old-school RPG.

[Roxlimn]

abaris wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
I think it's much simpler than that. Many fans expected and wanted DA:O : Again. They got a fundamentally different game, and they're judging it on the basis on how like DA:O it is, which it isn't.

Even if I wouldn't judge it on the basis of DAO, I wouldn't like it. The combat alone makes sure of that. If I wanted to play Prince of Persia, I would buy Prince of Persia.

Simply said, the jump and run concept doesn't cut it for me. And if that wasn't enough, the lack of companion customization takes care of the rest. I didn't even need to know what the story is about, since the whole atmosphere isn't my cup of tea.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The issue is, people disagree about what fundamentally makes a Bioware game good and worth playing. 

No, the issue is, what makes any game good and worth playing.

If DA2 were a brand new franchise and you played the demo, I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't even buy it and you thus wouldn't be complaining here.  Bottomline is, you're looking for a DA:O experience and you thought that DA2 would provide it, against all information.  You found that it was a different game, and as it's not your cup of tea, you automatically think that it's not good and not worth playing.

Combat in DA2 is NOTHING like combat in Prince of Persia.  The fact that you can even compare them makes me think that you know nothing about one or the other, or both.

[AlexXIV]

Bioware failed. That's the short answer. I don't even think that the fanbase is split in two. Most are disappointed, to different levels. Some won't admit it because they are long time bioware fans and DA fans and they think that any bad word from them could result into DA3 never happening, or worse, the end of Bioware.

There are good and new things to find in DA2, no doubt. But everyone who played the game and has played other Bioware games before must realize that it is pretty much cut in pretty much every prospect of the game. If you don't see that, you don't want to see it. In an attempt to be more efficient obviously things that were thought to be 'not so important' have been neglected. And they were wrong. They were important features to many people. If not all.

I can't see DA2 as much more than a sort of recycling project in a new box. Yes, we have an art style change which is an improvement, we have had an improvement in combat, making it more responsive and faster. The story concept even is better than DA:O, just sadly not really executed in a way that most people can appreciate it.

I don't know if Bioware is at a crossroads, but probably RPGs as we knew them are. They are probably too expensive and time consuming to make to only attract 3-5 million customers. Not Bioware's fault, but a fact they have to deal with. Being and having been an RPG developer for the most part.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 avril 2011 - 03:41 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But my point is that to some DAO players, DA2 isn't fundamentally different at all. And among those people you're going to find many of the folks who really enjoy it.

The issue is, people disagree about what fundamentally makes a Bioware game good and worth playing. 

I would agree with this.  I'm relatively new to Bioware games so I don't know if this invalidates my opinion or not, but I don't feel there is much difference between the two games.  The animations are flashier, and the dungeons are a bit shorter, but ultimately it feels like the same game.

As someone who always played Oblivion via third person view (I can't stand first person view, it's why I can't do most modern shooters), I would agree with Upsettingshorts's previous assertions.

[byzantine horse]

The rest of the points in the OP aside - is it wise to paint the hardcore RPG crowd as the pinnacle of mankind and the average gamer in late teens/early 20s as zombies who are too stupid to realize what is good for them? Just wondering, this has come up many times and it confuses me to no end.

[Cataca]

Sabriana wrote...
Over here, the violence is turned down in games, but we don't mind sex. As long as it's not hardcore porn, of course.

 

Europe? Yes, i think the demonizing of "sexual" content is strange anyhow. Besides that they show as much skin as one sees when going somewhere where you can swim. Its much more important to show kids that they shouldnt reduce girls to a pair of boobs. Something that a certain pirate and a naive elf in a particular game doesnt stress enough. Or a certain tv show named after a anatomy book that is basically about the female lead sleeping around.
On that matter, i think America goes about things the wrong way.

[Roxlimn]

AlexIV:

I'm nearing 40 and played most of the Bioware games from the start. I actually didn't like some of the BG games since I felt they were getting long in the tooth - reusing the same mechanics for the game over and over and over, and all that.

I like DA2. I like it better than DA:O, because I think it's not just aping BG2 but forging into new game design territory. If I wanted BG2, I can always play BG2.

[upsettingshorts]

abaris wrote...

No, the issue is, what makes any game good and worth playing.

You either have an agenda or are delusional if you're claiming this is universal.

AlexXIV wrote...

Bioware failed. That's the short answer. I don't even think that the fanbase is split in two. Most are disappointed, to different levels. Some won't admit it because they are long time bioware fans and DA fans and they think that any bad word from them could result into DA3 never happening, or worse, the end of Bioware.

Denying that people could genuinely be happy with the game is also denial.

Village Idiot wrote...

As someone who always played Oblivion via third person view (I can't stand first person view, it's why I can't do most modern shooters), I would agree with Upsettingshorts's previous assertions.

While view can enter into it, I was talking more about the perspective of the protagonist and the relationship the player has to them.

xScarecrowX wrote...

They need to at least choose a direction.

They did.  And it has little to do with new, hardcore, or casual audiences.  They picked an approach that will satisfy some and alienate others, but there are hardcore and casual players, fans both old and new, in both the "pleased" and "disappointed" camps.  Because that's not actually the issue.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 03:52 .

[TheMadCat]

Roxlimn wrote...

AlexIV:

I'm nearing 40 and played most of the Bioware games from the start. I actually didn't like some of the BG games since I felt they were getting long in the tooth - reusing the same mechanics for the game over and over and over, and all that.

I like DA2. I like it better than DA:O, because I think it's not just aping BG2 but forging into new game design territory. If I wanted BG2, I can always play BG2.

What new design territory? There's really nothing in DA2 you won't find in games a decade old.

[AlexXIV]

Roxlimn wrote...

AlexIV:

I'm nearing 40 and played most of the Bioware games from the start. I actually didn't like some of the BG games since I felt they were getting long in the tooth - reusing the same mechanics for the game over and over and over, and all that.

I like DA2. I like it better than DA:O, because I think it's not just aping BG2 but forging into new game design territory. If I wanted BG2, I can always play BG2.

Comparing BG2 to DA2 is a bit off. It's been 12 years inbetween. And BG2 is not my favorite game ever either. Right now I have to say that ME2 is one of my fav's followed by DA:O, Fallout3, FONV. I think one of the good old games was Morrowind. Oblivion no so much. In a way DA2 to DA:O to me is like Oblivion to Morrowind. Giving me the impression that they didn't have the money and time anymore.

I don't really see what people like in DA2 which they didn't like in DA:O. Maybe less time consuming? It is basically the same just many features cut and a graphic overhaul of the characters. Maybe you like the new art style better than the old? The Qunari and the Elves. Well, so do I. But it doesn't make up for the story and player choices in a RPG for me.

[Edli]

Roxlimn wrote...

AlexIV:

I'm nearing 40 and played most of the Bioware games from the start. I actually didn't like some of the BG games since I felt they were getting long in the tooth - reusing the same mechanics for the game over and over and over, and all that.

I like DA2. I like it better than DA:O, because I think it's not just aping BG2 but forging into new game design territory. If I wanted BG2, I can always play BG2.

If you want to forge a new game design you do that in a new IP not in a sequel. Players will rightfully expect the same but better from the sequel not a totally different playstyle.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Denying that people could genuinely be happy with the game is also denial.

No. If it was a fact and I denied it, then it would be denial. But if I just say I don't believe a word you say, then it is just me not believing a word you say.

[upsettingshorts]

AlexXIV wrote...

No. If it was a fact and I denied it, then it would be denial. But if I just say I don't believe a word you say, then it is just me not believing a word you say.

You're denying that another perspective is valid because you believe that it is fueled by a tangentially related agenda. 

[Shadowbanner]

byzantine horse wrote...

The rest of the points in the OP aside - is it wise to paint the hardcore RPG crowd as the pinnacle of mankind and the average gamer in late teens/early 20s as zombies who are too stupid to realize what is good for them? Just wondering, this has come up many times and it confuses me to no end.

Hi

I was just being ironic to make the reading easier. There are bright people in both camps, granted.

As I wrote, I'm one of the zombie crowd (console players), not a PC fanboy.

"Pinnacle of mankind", just brilliant.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Village Idiot wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But my point is that to some DAO players, DA2 isn't fundamentally different at all. And among those people you're going to find many of the folks who really enjoy it.

The issue is, people disagree about what fundamentally makes a Bioware game good and worth playing. 

I would agree with this.  I'm relatively new to Bioware games so I don't know if this invalidates my opinion or not, but I don't feel there is much difference between the two games.  The animations are flashier, and the dungeons are a bit shorter, but ultimately it feels like the same game.

As someone who always played Oblivion via third person view (I can't stand first person view, it's why I can't do most modern shooters), I would agree with Upsettingshorts's previous assertions.

There's huge difference but you won't see it because you are using third person view.  I agree with Upsettingshorts, it does concern on how we view the narrative.  The question with regard to OP is, do we have to reach that cross road to make a choice? Because right now it's pretty much like 50-50 split. One group leaves could seriously affect BioWare games. 

[AkiKishi]

TheMadCat wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

AlexIV:

I'm nearing 40 and played most of the Bioware games from the start. I actually didn't like some of the BG games since I felt they were getting long in the tooth - reusing the same mechanics for the game over and over and over, and all that.

I like DA2. I like it better than DA:O, because I think it's not just aping BG2 but forging into new game design territory. If I wanted BG2, I can always play BG2.

What new design territory? There's really nothing in DA2 you won't find in games a decade old.

This is the case, and done better. Of course a lot is going to depend on what other games you have played in where on the scale you see DA2.

A lot of people are marking DA2 up just because it's shiny, which is something I don't do.