243 réponses à ce sujet

[Slayer299]

DA2 is an action RPG. It's 90% fighting and 10% everything else (dialogue, visuals, NPC's, story, etc,), and that's my definition of ARGP.

[Perles75]

it's a game that has a storyline, a quest-based structure, level progression with personal development, relatively frequent dialogues with choices, a lot of attention to combat and to relations with companions.

How would you call it?

P.S.: the same phrase could be applied to Origins, by the way, perhaps with slightly less attention to combat -which is in any case predominant- and with (very) slightly more involvement of noncombat abilities.

Modifié par Perles75, 03 mai 2011 - 03:04 .

[88mphSlayer]

Slayer299 wrote...

DA2 is an action RPG. It's 90% fighting and 10% everything else (dialogue, visuals, NPC's, story, etc,), and that's my definition of ARGP.

it's not really all that different from DAO in terms of mission structure, it's mostly just shorter missions

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 03 mai 2011 - 03:09 .

[Volourn]

"DA2 is an action RPG. It's 90% fighting and 10% everything else (dialogue, visuals, NPC's, story, etc,), and that's my definition of ARGP. "

First off, your precentage is way off.

Secondly, by your deifntion, classic rpgs like the GB games, Wizardry, M&M, BG series, IWD series, ARC, and a host of others are action rpgs. In fact, by your defintion, 99% of rpgs are actually action rpgs including the FOs because fighting is a huge part of those games as well. L0LZ

[KilrB]

DA2 should have been a sports game ...

Dragon (Age) Ball

... as Bioware/EA's performance through this puts me in mind of the professional athlete that renegotiates their contract on the basis of a good season, "phones it in" the next season, and blames the fans.

[AlanC9]

Volourn wrote...
Secondly, by your deifntion, classic rpgs like the GB games, Wizardry, M&M, BG series, IWD series, ARC, and a host of others are action rpgs. In fact, by your defintion, 99% of rpgs are actually action rpgs including the FOs because fighting is a huge part of those games as well. L0LZ

Well, maybe not the FOs. Aren't noncombat solutions possible in those? I wouldn't know, myself; I've never completed FO 1 or 2 without running Small Guns skill into the stratosphere.

But all the others, sure. Hell, let's add the TES games. We sometimes call Morrowind a hiking simulator, but you can't hike 50 feet without being jumped by a cliff racer.

[element eater]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
But, its the game's fault for not explaining the personality system meaningfully to the player. By hiding it so well many don't realize its there at all. I would have missed it if I hadn't seen the same scenes playing out on my wife's game and watching her succeed/fail at things I did the reverse.

problem with that system for me is that i kind of felt obliged to stick with a particular personalitie type most of  the convosations i didnt realy even read alot of the responses i just looked at personality type. At least wen u have point allocated skills you have the freedom to choose the option you want and dont just get forced into a particulars style of talking 

on topic i would say it was an action rpg 

[Volourn]

"Well, maybe not the FOs. Aren't noncombat solutions possible in those? I wouldn't know, myself; I've never completed FO 1 or 2 without running Small Guns skill into the stratosphere."

yeah, but there is still a lot of combat (or having to skirt around combat) in the game.

[AkiKishi]

AlanC9 wrote...

Volourn wrote...
Secondly, by your deifntion, classic rpgs like the GB games, Wizardry, M&M, BG series, IWD series, ARC, and a host of others are action rpgs. In fact, by your defintion, 99% of rpgs are actually action rpgs including the FOs because fighting is a huge part of those games as well. L0LZ

Well, maybe not the FOs. Aren't noncombat solutions possible in those? I wouldn't know, myself; I've never completed FO 1 or 2 without running Small Guns skill into the stratosphere.

But all the others, sure. Hell, let's add the TES games. We sometimes call Morrowind a hiking simulator, but you can't hike 50 feet without being jumped by a cliff racer.

FO's outside of random encounters which you can run away from have almost 100% non combat solutions of one kind or another.

Earlier RPGs were not action RPGs they were strategy/tactics rpgs. Combat heavy, but with very different resolutions to the awesome button.

[AlanC9]

element eater wrote...

problem with that system for me is that i kind of felt obliged to stick with a particular personalitie type most of  the convosations i didnt realy even read alot of the responses i just looked at personality type. At least wen u have point allocated skills you have the freedom to choose the option you want and dont just get forced into a particulars style of talking 

I'm a little confused by this. How is a point-skill system less restrictive? Once you've allocated your points you're done.

[AlanC9]

BobSmith101 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Volourn wrote...
Secondly, by your deifntion, classic rpgs like the GB games, Wizardry, M&M, BG series, IWD series, ARC, and a host of others are action rpgs. In fact, by your defintion, 99% of rpgs are actually action rpgs including the FOs because fighting is a huge part of those games as well. L0LZ

Well, maybe not the FOs. Aren't noncombat solutions possible in those? I wouldn't know, myself; I've never completed FO 1 or 2 without running Small Guns skill into the stratosphere.

But all the others, sure. Hell, let's add the TES games. We sometimes call Morrowind a hiking simulator, but you can't hike 50 feet without being jumped by a cliff racer.

FO's outside of random encounters which you can run away from have almost 100% non combat solutions of one kind or another.

Earlier RPGs were not action RPGs they were strategy/tactics rpgs. Combat heavy, but with very different resolutions to the awesome button.

Volourn and I were talking about someone's definition of action-RPG which was solely about the amount of combat. If you want to use a definition based on the kind of combat go right ahead, but i don't see how it's relevant to the posts you quoted.

[Altima Darkspells]

Slayer299 wrote...

DA2 is an action RPG. It's 90% fighting and 10% everything else (dialogue, visuals, NPC's, story, etc,), and that's my definition of ARGP.

Genres are determined by mechanics, not story or other 'incidentals' to gameplay.  That's why ME2 is a shooter, for example, and why Alpha Protocol or Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines isn't.

The problem with shifting DA2 into a genre is that it's pretty bastardized.  It has elements of both classic CRPG and more current action RPGs (and even more current hack-n-slashes) while completely lacking the things people would see to automatically put it in one category or another.

Consoles, for example.  Personally, I'd feel that any game where you have to hit the same button over and over for the 'standard' melee attack that always hits (as in, not a shooter or some sort of TES melee thing) is an action game, which would make DA2 an action RPG.

However, on the PC, there are auto-attacks.  Every time you hit an enemy, your skill at pressing the correct button isn't put to the test, but the numbers behind the mechanics.  You don't aim for the head for massive damage.  In short, the capabilities of your character determine much, much more of a combat outcome than the capabilities of the player.  That's pretty much the core of C/W RPGs.

Personal feelings do come into account.  Sometimes games just don't feel right for their genres.  For example, no one on this planet could convince me that Diablo (2) is anything more than a mindless hack-n-slash instead of the action RPG most people seem to think it is.

[WilliamShatner]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
DA 2 is either dialogue (with no character skills) or combat.

The part you may not realize is that the conversational skills are still there. You're just not seeing them. Nor 'spending points' on them. You build your skill by building your Hawke's personality. How good they do at Diplomacy/Charm/Intimidate is based on how you play. DiploHawke can succeed at Diplomacy options the other personalites can not. WittyHawke does best at Charm persuasions. AggroHawke does best at Intimidating.

Which, in my opinion, makes for a somewhat 'truer' sense of roleplay. Since its how you actually roleplay your Hawke that determines success. Not arbitrary skill point expenditure.

But, its the game's fault for not explaining the personality system meaningfully to the player. By hiding it so well many don't realize its there at all. I would have missed it if I hadn't seen the same scenes playing out on my wife's game and watching her succeed/fail at things I did the reverse.

Nah.  The new system is rubbish.

Improving your speech should be a skill, just like people learn to be better, more convincing speakers in real life.  Some people are naturally gifted at it but most people have to study what makes a good speaker and some human psychology to understand how to bring people around to your point of view.  Putting a point into Persuasion or Speech or whatever implies to me that my character is doing such.

The DA2 system requires you to pick what kind of personality you want and stick with it.  Idiotic.  Just because I'm a really nice guy doesn't mean I'm a great speaker, debater or can convince people.  

[Haexpane]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
DA 2 is either dialogue (with no character skills) or combat.

The part you may not realize is that the conversational skills are still there. You're just not seeing them. Nor 'spending points' on them. You build your skill by building your Hawke's personality. How good they do at Diplomacy/Charm/Intimidate is based on how you play. DiploHawke can succeed at Diplomacy options the other personalites can not. WittyHawke does best at Charm persuasions. AggroHawke does best at Intimidating.

Which, in my opinion, makes for a somewhat 'truer' sense of roleplay. Since its how you actually roleplay your Hawke that determines success. Not arbitrary skill point expenditure.

But, its the game's fault for not explaining the personality system meaningfully to the player. By hiding it so well many don't realize its there at all. I would have missed it if I hadn't seen the same scenes playing out on my wife's game and watching her succeed/fail at things I did the reverse.

Nah.  The new system is rubbish.

Improving your speech should be a skill, just like people learn to be better, more convincing speakers in real life.  Some people are naturally gifted at it but most people have to study what makes a good speaker and some human psychology to understand how to bring people around to your point of view.  Putting a point into Persuasion or Speech or whatever implies to me that my character is doing such.

The DA2 system requires you to pick what kind of personality you want and stick with it.  Idiotic.  Just because I'm a really nice guy doesn't mean I'm a great speaker, debater or can convince people.  

Great points, while on paper it makes sense to "ditch crafting, 95% of everyone dumped crafting on companions they don't use".

The REAL solution is to change it, not ditch it.  But they didn't have enough time to think through a solution.

Same for the combat, it wasn't perfect in DAO, so instead of changing it, just speed it up.

Character develoment, everyone knows that Dual Wield Warriors were super over powered, instead of fixing it, remove it.

Same thing they did with Mass Effect 2, anything that wasn't perfect, was removed instead of fixed.

Certainly an efficient way to code software.  I see it all the time in my industry "new streamlined versions" of applications are sold to VPs, then the users try the apps and are like "umm half of the features are gone"

Apple is one of the best at this, I can't even change the ring volume on my iphone for different notifactions, (email/text/phone call etc..)   They just removed the choice and made it pretty.

EA is following apple.  When in doubt, remove it and make it pretty.

[Realmzmaster]

Slayer299 wrote...

DA2 is an action RPG. It's 90% fighting and 10% everything else (dialogue, visuals, NPC's, story, etc,), and that's my definition of ARGP.

This would included every CRPG ever made. But there are dialog options in DA 2 where you can avoid a fight or pick a fight in certain situations. The meeting between the elves and templars comes to mind or coming out of Pride's end at the end of the New Path quest.

I yet to see a CRPG where all the situations had a non violent solution. One of the cores of a CRPG in a fantasy setting is combat. Gamers expect combat.  Another core is exploration. Another core is role playing the character.
So if a game is 10% fighting and 90% everything else what is it? An adventure game?
If a game is 60% cobat and 40% everything else is it a semi action rpg? or if it is 40% combat and 60% everything else it is a true CRPG?
Give nme the definitive definition otherwise it just your opinion, which is valid for you. And you have a right to that opinion.

[Realmzmaster]

@Haexpane,
Sometimes in software development things are broken to the point there is no fix, or the fix breaks sometime else that is more important so it is removed. Not saying it is the case here. But I have written and used enough software to know some things cannot be fix and the fixes make the problem worst.
What is easy to say, can be quite difficult in execution. The devil is always in the details.

[Haexpane]

Realmzmaster wrote...

@Haexpane,
Sometimes in software development things are broken to the point there is no fix, or the fix breaks sometime else that is more important so it is removed. Not saying it is the case here. But I have written and used enough software to know some things cannot be fix and the fixes make the problem worst.
What is easy to say, can be quite difficult in execution. The devil is always in the details.

I also know this first hand.  However I've also worked with developers who spend 5 days explaining why they can't fix something, then we pass it off to another developer and 3 hours later it's working better than ever.

I don't know what went on behind the scenes at Bioware other than what they told us.

What they told us about ME2 was, they took out the inventory and stats affecting gameplay to work on the Shooter feel of the game first and make that seem right.  Then once they had the shooter feel of the game feeling right, they decided they didn't need to add back in the RPG.

So from Bioware's own descriptions of how it went, they removed it and decided they didn't even  need it anymore.

Now i suspect what happened is because of how big ME2 was in sales, that decision to just remove anything that was not great and not replace it, seems to have become a paradigm.

[Realmzmaster]

@Haexpane,
That is not an unusual phenomenon. People can proofread their own work and never catch all the mistakes, because they fill in the mistakes as they read. Let someone else read the paper and the paper will be littered in red (except for my wife's papers she never seems to miss a mistake if she makes one). The same thing with programmers.
A fresh pair of eyes can sometimes find the problem.
Unfortunately when you are taking about hundreds of thousands of lines of code that is a daunting task.
I do not know if if this is the case. I assume Bioware had alpha and beta testers. I would think that someone in that group pointed out the flaws. But given the dealine and budget it may not have been possible to fix them. Just an assumption.

[element eater]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm a little confused by this. How is a point-skill system less restrictive? Once you've allocated your points you're done.

In dao if i have intimidate, persuade plus normal ansers i can pick any one from that list as i see appropriate, i might for example intimidate a slaver into submitting but then negotiate a peaceful solution when dealing with upset pesents.  However, if my character is genraly sarcastic in da2 i occaisionaly get a bonus sarcastic response but will never have a choice to choose a diplomatic or forceful solution, im effectivly being restricted to using the same response over and over.  Just because i use the sarcastic responses it doesnt mean my character should be incapable  of using differant approaches when i deem nessacery.

[Haexpane]

Realmzmaster wrote...

@Haexpane,
That is not an unusual phenomenon. People can proofread their own work and never catch all the mistakes, because they fill in the mistakes as they read. Let someone else read the paper and the paper will be littered in red (except for my wife's papers she never seems to miss a mistake if she makes one). The same thing with programmers.
A fresh pair of eyes can sometimes find the problem.
Unfortunately when you are taking about hundreds of thousands of lines of code that is a daunting task.
I do not know if if this is the case. I assume Bioware had alpha and beta testers. I would think that someone in that group pointed out the flaws. But given the dealine and budget it may not have been possible to fix them. Just an assumption.

Certainly, but coding aside, I'm more looking at it from a design perspective.  It wasnt that the Mass Effect inventory had bugs, it just had an odd and cumbersome design.  

Ditto for the stats affecting gameplay in ME2, it was "Confusing" for shooter fans to have to level up sniper weapons, so they just removed it.

Oh well, it's gone and it aint coming back.    Only thing left to do is Quit Bioware I guess just like that Bioware Developer who quit.

/shrug

[Haexpane]

element eater wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm a little confused by this. How is a point-skill system less restrictive? Once you've allocated your points you're done.

In dao if i have intimidate, persuade plus normal ansers i can pick any one from that list as i see appropriate, i might for example intimidate a slaver into submitting but then negotiate a peaceful solution when dealing with upset pesents.  However, if my character is genraly sarcastic in da2 i occaisionaly get a bonus sarcastic response but will never have a choice to choose a diplomatic or forceful solution, im effectivly being restricted to using the same response over and over.  Just because i use the sarcastic responses it doesnt mean my character should be incapable  of using differant approaches when i deem nessacery.

Even more fuel to that, the Wheel icon tells me that it's the "sarcastic response" but half of the time the text indidcates it will be level headed and not really sarcastic.  Then you click it and the dialog is completely off base and makes me want to punch Hawke in her boobs.

[Perles75]

I think the issue is not the combat frequency, but its meaning in the frame of the story and of the world.
In RPGs, combat should be in function of the plot (quests); in action games combats make the game themselves. For my feeling, DA2 has a bit too much "combat for combat's sake" and this is why it has the flavour of an action-RPG.

[Haexpane]

Perles75 wrote...

I think the issue is not the combat frequency, but its meaning in the frame of the story and of the world.
In RPGs, combat should be in function of the plot (quests); in action games combats make the game themselves. For my feeling, DA2 has a bit too much "combat for combat's sake" and this is why it has the flavour of an action-RPG.

Really? I played like 2 hours last night and the first 45 minutes had NO COMBAT, and I am a combat heavy RPG player, I was looking and wanting combat, and it took me 45 minutes of talky talk to get any, and the combat lasted like 2 minutes (deep roads)

I spent more time looking at loading screens and hearing Anders bro dawg it up with another warden than I did actually playing the game.

I feel like 50% of the time in DA2 I am just watching puppets act out some fan fiction story about a red headed lesbian.

[Realmzmaster]

If you define an action RPG by the amount of combat then DA 2 is not an action RPG. I am with Haexpane on this one. There are quests where no combat at all takes place which is something you do not find in most action RPGs. There are other quests where combat is inevitable ( for example All that Remains). Most of the combat in DA 2 happens within quests. There are very few random encounters and even those lead to quests.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 05 mai 2011 - 01:33 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol, better just call DA 2 a story based RPG and leave it at that.

I personally think it's an Action RPG, but I don't classify Action RPGs as being separate from the RPG genre, it's merely a subgenre within the bigger genre. So this "Dragon Age 2 is not a real RPG, it's an Action RPG!" type of talk is really funny to me.