843 réponses à ce sujet

[Otterwarden]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

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.

Agree that this point really struck me as a vital breakthrough for my personal understanding.  I've always played RPGs in this style as well, sort of a Zeus-like character intervening in the lives of my chosen champions.  For that reason, the move to "cinemagraphics" doesn't bother me, and I even enjoyed W1 more than DA:O because, even if it was a fixed protagonist, the back story was less cliche for me.  With DA2 my complaints were numerous, but choice of voiced shared protagonist wasn't among them.

[Roxlimn]

abaris:

If you're 48, then you're way too old to be using the word "childish" to express criticism about a game.

Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. . . . When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

[TheMadCat]

Roxlimn wrote...

TheMadCat:

You've stated it once,
twice at most, and it's so ludicrous a point that I can't decide how to
dismantle it. Would you like me to dispute it from a basic game design
perspective, with a view towards person view, or just let it collapse on
its own?

Mass Effect is not the same game as The Witcher. DA2
is unique in what it does. If you can't differentiate between Mass
Effect and The Witcher, then it's pointless to try convincing you why
DA2 is different from Jade Empire. I have to wonder how you can
differentiate it from DAO. Or Pong.

ARPG: Twitch based combat that is driven by progressive character statistics and skills. What ludicrous with this definition? 

BobSmith101 wrote...


Your on the wrong track here. It's how the mechanic modifies the player input , not whether or not the weapon is a sword or a gun.

Example in AP you have a skill that lets you shoot X number of bullets while paused and they all then hit in real time. That's a skill that is beyond you as a player just using a pistol. ME is very similiar, in ME if you have no skill in sniper rifles it wobbles like crazy, get to skill level 5 or 6 and it stabalises considerably.

Thank you.

[Roxlimn]

TheMadCat:

1. I thought you were done with this? Was that just for dramatic effect?

2. I said DA2 was a unique game. I didn't say that hybridizing games was a unique practice.  classifying ARPGs together isn't the same practice as saying that they're all exactly the same game.  In point of fact, ARPGs is such a loose classification that it's nearly pointless from a game design perspective.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 06:31 .

[jimmy_smith]

Otterwarden wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

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.

Agree that this point really struck me as a vital breakthrough for my personal understanding.  I've always played RPGs in this style as well, sort of a Zeus-like character intervening in the lives of my chosen champions.  For that reason, the move to "cinemagraphics" doesn't bother me, and I even enjoyed W1 more than DA:O because, even if it was a fixed protagonist, the back story was less cliche for me.  With DA2 my complaints were numerous, but choice of voiced shared protagonist wasn't among them.

can't agree more
I always play rpg as 3rd person as well.

[Davasar]

That's too bad. I prefer being more deeply immersed in the first person, but to each their own.

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

abaris:

If you're 48, then you're way too old to be using the word "childish" to express criticism about a game.

Sorry, english isn't my first language: Maybe you like toonish better or ludicrous or straight from Disneyland.

But since you have chosen to pick just one statement about a feature of the game, not the game in itself, you probably are out for a nitpicking, not for a discussion.

[planed scaped]

Eh I really don't care anymore. I've vented and now am waiting for ME3 to decide whether I am giving up on Bioware.

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

IB4 Biofluffers yell at me.

[TheMadCat]

Roxlimn wrote...

TheMadCat:

1. I thought you were done with this? Was that just for dramatic effect?

I was, but your remark prior to this irritated me enough to come back.

2. I said DA2 was a unique game. I didn't say that hybridizing games was a unique practice.  classifying ARPGs together isn't the same practice as saying that they're all exactly the same game.  In point of fact, ARPGs is such a loose classification that it's nearly pointless from a game design perspective.

Yes you did, you said...

It's a hybrid between action game design in the manner of Diablo, and
party-based tactical design in the manner of DA:O. There is no other
game on sale in recent memory that's quite like it. There doesn't seem
to be any game on the horizon that will be similar.

And I have no problems with you classifying the game as such. But, I do question your belief that there is no game like it that follows such a formula when there are two by BioWare alone that do. Games which employ the Diablo-esque mechanics along with traditional group centric RPG's. Jade Empire and Mass Effect, games which incorporate both the Diablo-esquq gameplay mechanics and the traditional party based features.

And no, ARPG is not such a loose classification that it's nearly pointless. It's actually clearly defined in many games. And that definition is, once again, twitch based combat driven by a progressive stat and skill system.

[Roxlimn]

abaris wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

abaris:

If you're 48, then you're way too old to be using the word "childish" to express criticism about a game.

Sorry, english isn't my first language: Maybe you like toonish better or ludicrous or straight from Disneyland.

But since you have chosen to pick just one statement about a feature of the game, not the game in itself, you probably are out for a nitpicking, not for a discussion.

If you've followed any of my posts at all, you'll know that I'm up for pages and pages of discussion.  The question is, are you?

It's possible to say that you don't like the style of how the combat is presented, but saying that it's childish?  What does that even mean?  Toonish?  Like Tom and Jerry?  Assuredly not.  I have not seen any Disneyland attraction that looked like a DA2 combat.

Since English is not your primary language, let me suggest, "I don't like the sensibility of the combat style," as a neutral statement of your disapproval.  Trying to equate it with disparate words you associate with children only betrays a possible need to prove yourself an adult, which you shouldn't need to do at 48.

[Roxlimn]

TheMadCat wrote...
And I have no problems with you classifying the game as such. But, I do question your belief that there is no game like it that follows such a formula when there are two by BioWare alone that do. Games which employ the Diablo-esque mechanics along with traditional group centric RPG's. Jade Empire and Mass Effect, games which incorporate both the Diablo-esquq gameplay mechanics and the traditional party based features.

And no, ARPG is not such a loose classification that it's nearly pointless. It's actually clearly defined in many games. And that definition is, once again, twitch based combat driven by a progressive stat and skill system.

You think Mass Effect is Diablo-esque gameplay.  That speaks for itself, really.

One is based on first person shooter play.  The other is based on isometric ability-based abstract combat.  The two couldn't be more dissimilar.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 07:12 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

planed scaped wrote...

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

So, here's a question: if Bioware had put more time and care in DA2, making it a much better example of that kind of game, would it be a success or a failure?

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

It's possible to say that you don't like the style of how the combat is presented, but saying that it's childish?  What does that even mean?  Toonish?  Like Tom and Jerry?  Assuredly not.  I have not seen any Disneyland attraction that looked like a DA2 combat.

Tom and Jerry fits the bill pretty nicely - in my humble opinion anyway. Maybe with a little bit of Asian comic on the side to get that special Ninja note.

I oculd call it poorly done, if that's more to your liking - again in my humble opinion.

What would you call it?

It's obviously there to cut on the animation budget, since exploding enemies only use one kind of animation. Some user took a picture right after the explosion - its definitely the same bald man figure cut into six or seven pieces over and over again.

[Otterwarden]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

planed scaped wrote...

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

So, here's a question: if Bioware had put more time and care in DA2, making it a much better example of that kind of game, would it be a success or a failure?

Personally, I believe it still would have failed because it deviated too far from the original in concept and design.

[Melca36]

If they had not incorporated this......................... there would be less complaining.



Enemies coming out of nowhere is just silly and lazy

Exploding bodies when backstabbing is even more ridiculous...................




While I had fun with DA:2 I do resent game developers/publishers assuming I am not intelligent enough and that the game needed to be streamlined.

Modifié par Melca36, 17 avril 2011 - 07:24 .

[AlanC9]

abaris wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

abaris:

If you're 48, then you're way too old to be using the word "childish" to express criticism about a game.

Sorry, english isn't my first language: Maybe you like toonish better or ludicrous or straight from Disneyland.

But since you have chosen to pick just one statement about a feature of the game, not the game in itself, you probably are out for a nitpicking, not for a discussion.

Don't apologize. "Childish" is standard idiomatic English. Roxlimn is simply wrong.

[Roxlimn]

abaris:

Tom and Jerry fits the bill pretty nicely - in my humble opinion anyway. Maybe with a little bit of Asian comic on the side to get that special Ninja note.

I oculd call it poorly done, if that's more to your liking - again in my humble opinion.

What would you call it?

It's obviously there to cut on the animation budget, since exploding enemies only use one kind of animation. Some user took a picture right after the explosion - its definitely the same bald man figure cut into six or seven pieces over and over again.

Definitely not Tom and Jerry. That comment about "Asian comic" really hits that proper xenophobic note.

The combat in DA2 obviously focuses on exaggerated motions and clearly discernible actions to help portray the action. Theatre combat is actually like this, so I might call it theatrical or stylized.

AlanC9:

Don't apologize. "Childish" is standard idiomatic English. Roxlimn is simply wrong.

Really?  I challenge you to defend a critique of a media property being "childish" as being anything other than what I said it was.  I did NOT say that it was idiomatically incorrect.  I said that calling something childish as a criticism often reflects a decided desire to be "adult" on the part of the critic.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 07:30 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Otterwarden wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

planed scaped wrote...

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

So, here's a question: if Bioware had put more time and care in DA2, making it a much better example of that kind of game, would it be a success or a failure?

Personally, I believe it still would have failed because it deviated too far from the original in concept and design.

See, this is the most interesting part of the sturm und drang surrounding the Dragon Age series (at least for me).  If Bioware takes the more action-oriented path with its future RPG's, but dials in the craftsmanship and storytelling elements we're more used to seeing, what then?  If it attracts a larger and more varied audience, then the ARPG becomes the new paradigm, I think.  At root, I think that is the fear behind the rage at DA2.  As much as hardcores rail at the shoddy workmanship, that shoddy workmanship might actually be their last hope.

If Bioware actually makes DA3 into the best possible version of DA2, a lot of fans might be seeing the taillights receding in the distance.

[Gatt9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

planed scaped wrote...

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

So, here's a question: if Bioware had put more time and care in DA2, making it a much better example of that kind of game, would it be a success or a failure?

It still would've failed.  The reused environments is just one issue with the game.  The Wheel of "I don't wanna read",  weak combat,  warping enemies,  removed features would all still be present.  Because Laidlaw is from Bethseda's school of thought where the best way to approach an RPG is by making it play more like Marvel Ultimate Alliance. 

You can't make an RPG and make it for everyone,  RPG is a genre that is by definition not for everyone.  CoD players don't want dialogue in their games,  they don't want to level,  they just want "BOOM HEADSHOT!".  You'll always fail when you try to make an RPG for everyone,  because everyone doesn't like RPGs and RPG players aren't looking for Shooters or Adventure Games.

Seriously,  if you sit down at the design table and the discussion starts with "How can we get FPS players to buy our RPG",  you've already failed before writing a single line of code.  You failed at recognizing your customer base and potential penetration,  and *nothing* is going to go right from that point onwards.

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

That comment about "Asian comic" really hits that proper xenophobic note.

Oh, sure. I'm mister xenophobic incorporate.

Man, you're a joke.

Kudos to the ones posting the above pictures. Maybe come again and tell me what's to like looking at them? Or of what they remind you, come to that?

Modifié par abaris, 17 avril 2011 - 07:32 .

[Roxlimn]

abaris wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

That comment about "Asian comic" really hits that proper xenophobic note.

Oh, sure. I'm mister xenophobic incorporate.
Man, you're a joke.
Kudos to the ones posting the above pictures. Maybe come again and tell me what's to like looking at them?

Instead of attacking me personally, perhaps you'd like to engage in discussion.  Just asking.

[DocDoomII]

Roxlimn wrote...

abaris:

If you're 48, then you're way too old to be using the word "childish" to express criticism about a game.

You are basically saying that he is acting childish and the fact that you didn't use the word directly doesn't change the fact.

Quite contradictory.

Modifié par DocDoomII, 17 avril 2011 - 07:33 .

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

Instead of attacking me personally, perhaps you'd like to engage in discussion.  Just asking.

Yeah, coming from the guy, who insinuated that I'm xenophobic.

[AkiKishi]

Otterwarden wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

planed scaped wrote...

I kinda thought the same thing as the OP. Bioware alienated the older fans in order to get to the new younger fanbase. A lot more profit in them. Except Bioware kinda failed on both fronts by making a mediocre game that excelles in nothing and no one can relate to since it was made for everyone.

So, here's a question: if Bioware had put more time and care in DA2, making it a much better example of that kind of game, would it be a success or a failure?

Personally, I believe it still would have failed because it deviated too far from the original in concept and design.

Quality can usually overcome that at least as far as those who are not totally set in their views. DA2 was for a AAA title poor quality. Lacking in polish and that professional touch that AAA titles have.

[Roxlimn]

DocDoomII wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
abaris:
If you're 48, then you're way too old to be using the word "childish" to express criticism about a game.

You are basically saying that he is acting childish and the fact that you didn't use the word directly doesn't change the fact.
Quite contradictory.

Wrong interpretation.  I'm saying that he's not using any kind of informative criticism.  All we know is that he doesn't like "chilidish," and that he doesn't like the game.  What's "childish?"  Presumably something that relates to children.  What's wrong with something that's related to children, or that's primarily marketed or designed for children?  Dr. Seuss is for children, but I still like reading it.