843 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Alan's right,  Childish is a term used in English to refer to something as being designed for someone (Usually) under the age of 12.  It can refer to either behavior expected to be seen in a child who has not yet learned to control themselves,  or to some game lacking in any complicated aspects.

The game Candy Land would be childish,  as it is very simplistic and littered with design intended to appeal to a small child.  Axis & Allies would not be childish,  despite also being a board game,  because it is filled with complex interactions and no design intended to appeal to a small child.

The criticism is fair with DA2,  as the combat is acceptable in appearance only to those so young as to not recognize it's incredible ridiculousness.  Exploding bodies and impossible leaping attacks,  people standing in a fireball unharmed,  Enemies warping in and dropping on your head,  all challenge a more mature viewer's sensibilities.

You did choose the correct term,  and it's use is perfectly acceptable.

[Roxlimn]

abaris wrote...

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.

I said that your criticism of the action being "Asian comic" insinuates that "Asian comic" is a bad thing.  I'm suggesting that perhaps you could rephrase that to sound less xenophobic.  I didn't say that you were.

[Roxlimn]

Gatt9:

If anything, you're just proving how pointless the term is and how correct CS Lewis really was.

[Vena_86]

The polarized reviews come from people rating it 10/10 because they work at BioWare/EA or their reviews have been bought, or they have no clue what a good RPG or sequel for that matter is supposed to be, while the honest reviews from actual RPG players who appreciated the first DA for what it was look totally different.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

First of all, I'd say that there isn't a functional definition of RPG, when it comes to computer games.

I'll point out that I'm an old school tabletop and computer RPG player, but I've also played through Gears of War on Insane.  There were some mechanical changes I would make with Dragon Age:Origins (or Baldur's Gate, for that matter), and I really wish they would have spent about fifteen minutes on story or dialogue with Gears.

I like the concept of the direction taken in DA2, although it sounds like the implementation was pretty half-hearted and rushed.  I like the idea of the more action-oriented combat (absent 20-foot jumps and blood fountains), and streamlining of the interior ruleset.  I just don't see action and RPG's as mutually exclusive.

I do agree with you, however, when you say that you can't make a game for everyone.  Design must be cohesive.  But I'm not convinced that a well-made DA2 couldn't have a very broad appeal.

Modifié par Tantum Dic Verbo, 17 avril 2011 - 07:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Vena_86 wrote...

The polarized reviews come from people rating it 10/10 because they work at BioWare/EA or their reviews have been bought, or they have no clue what a good RPG or sequel for that matter is supposed to be, while the honest reviews from actual RPG players who appreciated the first DA for what it was look totally different.

Nope.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

Yeah, it sounds like the craftsmanship just wasn't there.  But if it were, then the discussion gets interesting.  As Bioware refines its hybrid ARPG approach, it'll be interesting to see where the core of the audience is.

[Everwarden]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

The polarized reviews come from people rating it 10/10 because they work at BioWare/EA or their reviews have been bought, or they have no clue what a good RPG or sequel for that matter is supposed to be, while the honest reviews from actual RPG players who appreciated the first DA for what it was look totally different.

Nope.

Yep. 

[DocDoomII]

Roxlimn wrote...

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.

Well, you see.
For example:
-when you put a big red spot with a 18 on the cover of a game
-if said game is placed in a world with dark tones (war, racism, slavery, religious conflicts...)
-if it isn't parodical like Magika (a game filled with irony and jokes on rpg cliché)


I surely wouldn't expect it to have power ranger fighiting animation apparently aimed to kids well below the 18.
And I surely wouldn't expect that a butter-knife could hit a person with so much power to actually blow up such person.
Honestly, sex scenes fade to black too. Not that I'm interested that much, but what's the point for the "18" mark?

You can't complain if someone stick the label "childish" on this game. Some aspects of it surely are.

Modifié par DocDoomII, 17 avril 2011 - 07:51 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I prefer my first person narrative player vs. third person narrative player theory.

Many previous Bioware games were in my opinion implicitly third person narratives. But they didn't go so far as to demand that everyone have this view. Adding a voiceover and a paraphrase system makes the games explicitly third person. So if you always played Bioware games as a third person narrative, this doesn't bother you and is possibly seen as an improvement. If you always played Bioware games as a first person narrative, this is a radical departure.

In terms of the feel of combat and the aesthetics of the animations and such, I don't think that's indicative of much else beyond simple aesthetic preference. If you mod out the exploding bodies, or don't have a DW rogue on your team, the game looks really damn close to Origins, it's just faster.

Can you explain a different between what you view as a first-person vs third-person narrative within a cRPG?

[erynnar]

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.

And the problem with cinematic, and VO PCs are that you get a lot less content for that supposed move forward (which it isn't, more like a side step, neither forward or backwards).  And you get less (illlusion) of choice with that, which also means less content (no choices in race for one).  What I have been asking and no one has answered me yet, is are you so enamored of the voiced PC that you are willing to lose content?  I am not saying you need to think one way or another, I am just curious. Because it seems no one is willing to look that fact in the face and answer it honestly one way or another. Until such time as technology changes. are you willing to give up content for having a character that talks?

[AlanC9]

Roxlimn wrote...

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.

Well, what you actually said before was:

Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves.

The descriptive term "childish" means lacking complexity, among other things.

Now, I suppose you can brijng abaris up on a technicality since he didn't explicitly say that he likes complexity.

[Maria Caliban]

erynnar wrote...

And the problem with cinematic, and VO PCs are that you get a lot less content for that supposed move forward (which it isn't, more like a side step, neither forward or backwards).  And you get less (illlusion) of choice with that, which also means less content (no choices in race for one).  What I have been asking and no one has answered me yet, is are you so enamored of the voiced PC that you are willing to lose content?  I am not saying you need to think one way or another, I am just curious. Because it seems no one is willing to look that fact in the face and answer it honestly one way or another. Until such time as technology changes. are you willing to give up content for having a character that talks?

I'll point out that your 'fact' isn't a fact. It's an assumption.

The assumption is that if there was no PCVO in Dragon Age 2, there would be more content. In a game that heavily reuses its maps, I'd suggest that DA 2 has a content crunch that has nothing to do with VO. Specifically, getting rid of PCVO wouldn't get you more of... whatever you think you'd get.

That said, 'content' is such a nebulous term, it's not very useful.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 17 avril 2011 - 07:58 .

[Roxlimn]

DocDoomII:

Well, you see.
For example:
-when you put a big red spot with a 18 on the cover of a game
-if said game is placed in a world with dark tones (war, racism, slavery, religious conflicts...)
-if it isn't parodical like Magika (a game filled with irony and jokes on rpg cliché)


I surely wouldn't expect it to have power ranger fighiting animation apparently aimed to kids well below the 18.
And I surely wouldn't expect that a butter-knife could hit a person with so much power to actually blow up such person.
Honestly, sex scenes fade to black too. Not that I'm interested that much, but what's the point for the "18" mark?

You can't complain if someone stick the label "childish" on this game. Some aspects of it surely are.

Rather, I would say that some aspects of it have aspects in common with programs that are marketed to children. Those aspects aren't necessarily ONLY for children.

My main objection is just that. The view that things designed for children are necessarily bad or worse than things designed for adults is EXACTLY the kind of thing Lewis was saying in his famous quote (which I quoted in my post).

Real adults have no problems enjoying things that were designed for children. So saying that something is suitable for children is not a valid criticism, unless you have issues with being identified with liking things made for children.

[abaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

The descriptive term "childish" means lacking complexity, among other things.

Lacking complexity was exactly what I meant, since the evil term childish means the same in my language.

And come what may, it reminds me of Roger Rabbit, Tom and Jerry and of japanese Ninja comics - and, by the way, I don't give a flying if this comes over as political incorrect.

[Dragoonlordz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I prefer my first person narrative player vs. third person narrative player theory.

Many previous Bioware games were in my opinion implicitly third person narratives. But they didn't go so far as to demand that everyone have this view. Adding a voiceover and a paraphrase system makes the games explicitly third person. So if you always played Bioware games as a third person narrative, this doesn't bother you and is possibly seen as an improvement. If you always played Bioware games as a first person narrative, this is a radical departure.

In terms of the feel of combat and the aesthetics of the animations and such, I don't think that's indicative of much else beyond simple aesthetic preference. If you mod out the exploding bodies, or don't have a DW rogue on your team, the game looks really damn close to Origins, it's just faster.

Can you explain a different between what you view as a first-person vs third-person narrative within a cRPG?

http://social.biowar...7811/40#7111765

That was my take on it.

[Roxlimn]

AlanC9:

In actuality, I did not say that. I actually quoted it. CS Lewis said that, in one of his famous quotes.

The descriptive term "childish" means lacking complexity, among other things.

Now, I suppose you can brijng abaris up on a technicality since he didn't explicitly say that he likes complexity.

Simplicity or complexity are not inherently desirable, in and of themselves, and I don't know how such an adjective would apply to the point in question. The animation is too simple? If anything, it's too complex. There's a real danger of detail overload in the combat animation at times.

[AlanC9]

aries1001 wrote...

I'm not quite sure I agree with the OP that us old hardcore 'geezers' do not want change. From what I can tell from my own observations travelling these forums, it seems very much to be the us old geezers that like the changes he most, from the tougher, more responsive combat to the more tigther personal story focusing on not saving the world and may of the other changes made in DA2. I'm not saying that some of the younger rpg fans do not like the changes as well, I'm saying that we old 'geezers' or most of us like the new direction, DA2 has taken.

Someone here -- Walker White ? - speculated that geezers are less likely to be bothered by change because we were already adults when BG1, etc. came along, so being "RPG gamers" isn't really part of our identity the way it might be for someone who was an adolescent when he first started playing them. We're also more likely to have played very different kinds of RPG systems, both PnP and CRPG.

[abaris]

Roxlimn wrote...

 There's a real danger of detail overload in the combat animation at times.

Quite a danger of overload indeed.

Melca36 wrote...



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

[Maria Caliban]

Childish implies simple and unsophisticated. It can also imply content less intelligent or realistic than adult content.

It's not inherently insulting, but is often used as such by people who see childish as being bad or people who desire to be perceived as adults. In my experience, teenagers will be very upset if something they like is perceived as childish while many adults seek out 'childish' elements in their entertainment.

WALL-E is a movie I regard as being childish, but I consider it to be excellent an film and wouldn't hesitate to suggest it to an adult or talk about my enjoyment of it. (It's one of my top ten movies)

Childishness is actually a complex social (and aesthetic) phenomenon.

That said, being this is the internet, I typically read 'childish' as meaning 'it sucks' because everything means 'it sucks' online.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 17 avril 2011 - 08:09 .

[AlanC9]

Roxlimn wrote...
In actuality, I did not say that. I actually quoted it. CS Lewis said that, in one of his famous quotes.

Not famous enough for me, I guess.

Simplicity or complexity are not inherently desirable, in and of themselves, and I don't know how such an adjective would apply to the point in question. The animation is too simple? If anything, it's too complex. There's a real danger of detail overload in the combat animation at times.

So then it's theoretically OK to call a game childish, but he's simply wrong on the substance of the point; probably because he thought "childish" means "appeals to children"?

[toggled]

Great analysis. The only thing you didn't properly explain was the horrific re-use of maps. It's been a while since I've played a console, but I'm pretty sure console players must have been stunned by the limited number of environments.

A question is whether Bioware even understands they are at a crossroads. After reading various interviews, including one with The Doctors, I have come to the conclusion that Bioware has talked itself into believing that the vast majority of its loyal fanbase loves DA2, and that it's only a few vocal people who hate it. If this is true, then inertia will cause Bioware to continue down its present path, that being the creation of shallow, inferior games.

BTW, I did not own a Commodore 64 or any of the other ancient computers you mentioned. I had a TRS-80, which my friends dubbed the "Trash-80".

Modifié par toggled, 17 avril 2011 - 08:20 .

[Roxlimn]

AlanC9:

It's uninformative to call a game "childish," just as it's uninformative to say that a game "sucks." "Childish" could mean any of several things, or it could just mean that the speaker doesn't want to be associated with things that relate to children. In both ways, it's a bad way to express criticism.

Maria Caliban goes into some detail about it above.

Whatever he meant, he could have expressed it better, which was my point.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 17 avril 2011 - 08:13 .

[Maria Caliban]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Can you explain a different between what you view as a first-person vs third-person narrative within a cRPG?

http://social.biowar...7811/40#7111765

That was my take on it.

That was an interesting read. Thank you.

[Otterwarden]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

In this case I would disagree, because too many of the complaints have revolved around the removal of character choice, skills, and overall customization, as well as the illusion of anything but a consensus script.  You can polish DA2 up, removing absurdities like exploding bodies, ninja waves, poorly chosen paraphrases, and you will still have created a game that risked not appealing to the original players.  Obviously, I have no proof to back up this impression, but that would be my gut call.