616 réponses à ce sujet

[aridor1570]

Vez04 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

That is very kind of you to say, thanks!

No problem.  I definitely know what it's like to feel a little betrayed when a source of entertainment takes a "wrong" direction.  It's one of the reasons I don't watch much TV anymore.

And yes it does sucks. I am still hoping that after DA2 lukewarm reception they will understand that there are quite lot of customers exactly like me and they shouldn't just throw us under the bus.

There are two problems, I think, with DA2:

1. They assumed that what worked for one IP will work for another, which completely misses the point of having two different IPs.

2. They shoved it out the door before it was finished, leaving a so-so plot, glitches galore, and tedious re-use of dungeouns.

Had they taken their time with it and realized that DA is not just ME with swords and dragons, they would have had much more success.  Never, ever make two IPs meant to capture the exact same audience--that's what sequels are for.

And despite those flaws, I still claim DA2 is superior to DA:O.

And what if he is serious? a guy can't have he's own opinion that differs from others?

[nelly21]

MajesticJazz wrote...

No, it is just that when I want to play a RPG I want to play a RPG. When I want to play a shooter I want to play a shooter.

I play games outside of RPGs such as Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (This fall I'll be playing BF3) and other shooters such as Gears of War (currently in the beta now). So "Quick twitch" gameplay isn't a problem for me.

That is what I don't get when Cheez says that ME3 is going more towards "pew pew". Well homegirl, if I wanted "pew pew" I would go play Halo: Reach, BFBC2, or Gears of War 3 Beta.....

And yet you continue to **** that ME 2 wasn't "rpg enough".

You bought a shooter/rpg. ME 2 was a shooter/rpg. And yet you want it to be more rpg. That tells me you didn't want to play a shooter/rpg in the first place. You want ME to be something it has never been and it isn't going to happen.

But who am I to quibble with you about such things? You're the only one who really "knows" what ME was supposed to be.

[Torhagen]

aridor1570 wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess we should stay old-school instead of trying something new. Because that might be fun.

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

I can't see any differance between ME2 and DA:O in the RPG aspect, it sounds like your implying any RPG must be a game where its in a fantasy setting, where the basic weapons are swords, maces, bows, and other kinds of medievel stuff, and you need to press something to interact with/attack it?

[Galad22]

aridor1570 wrote...

I can't see any differance between ME2 and DA:O in the RPG aspect, it sounds like your implying any RPG must be a game where its in a fantasy setting, where the basic weapons are swords, maces, bows, and other kinds of medievel stuff, and you need to press something to interact with/attack it?

I am not implying anything of the sort vampire: the masquarade bloodlines and deus ex are marvelous rpgs. And they don't have swords and the like, or well they have but also pistols.

ME2 is just much more of a cover shooter than it is an rpg. This is just my opinion but in Deus EX and VtMB rpg came first and fighting second. I personally get the feeling from ME2 that fighting was most important and rpg aspects were an afterthought. That is why I don't like it much.

[Alienmorph]

Apparently looks like Majestic Jazz and many others can't imagine a BioWare game that's NOT an RpG, so everything done by them after DA is not good because it has to be considered only a failed RpG.

Modifié par Alienmorph, 05 mai 2011 - 03:59 .

[CroGamer002]

Galad22 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I guess we should stay old-school instead of trying something new. Because that might be fun.

It is not really new if you turn rpg into a shooter. It is just a shooter then.

Games should be different. Rpgs are quite different from other games for a reason.

I'd like for you to play Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War for 10-20 minutes.

BIG DIFFERENCES.

[Leonia]

Whoa.. it's easier to compare ME2 to DA2 than to DA:O. That's.. stretching things a bit.

RPG elements usually refers to inventory and customisation, anything the player can have lots of control over.

Modifié par leonia42, 05 mai 2011 - 03:56 .

[CroGamer002]

Vez04 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

And despite those flaws, I still claim DA2 is superior to DA:O.

Well, yeah. *smiles nervously*

[wepeel_]

OssieZero wrote...

RPG is a genre that has been fairly well defined by games in that field. It does no good to say "Well, an RPG to me means good story" or "Roleplaying, as defined by Websters means..." because RPG doesn't mean those things. It is, in a sense, a technical term, not to be taken literally. RPG as a game genre has its roots in tabletop gaming, and in character building, looting, staggering breadth of world, huge variety in class, weapon, armour etc. These are established tropes for the genre, and it is for those most familiar with these tropes to determine whether a game is an RPG or not.

I disagree with your definition. In the roots of the genre, the core of the experience was just what the name suggests - role-playing; immersing yourself in a different world. That's the foundation that all the looting and rolling great stats and killing monsters and attaining powerful weapons rests on. Then of course some gamers like to focus more on those aspects of the game than the actual immersion - but there's still nothing very technical or difficult about the term 'RPG'.

[Someone With Mass]

Mesina2 wrote...
I'd like for you to play Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War for 10-20 minutes.

BIG DIFFERENCES.

I can vouch for that.

[Darth Death]

Bostur wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Bostur wrote...

This could just be a smoke screen for worried investors, but it does have bad stuff happening written all over it.

Aiming for a broader audience can result in some decent games, but it rarely results in excellence. I also worry that if they start 'tweaking' for a broader audience this late in the development cycle they may end up breaking some things that would have worked well. I see another DA2 disaster in the works.

If you've read the GI article you would know what they're "tweaking", it was stated that the gameplay won't be far off from what ME2's gameplay was.

How I see it the worse has already happened (for hardcore RPG fans) in ME2. ME3 is going to add on to the already successful formula, so ultimately if you enjoyed ME2's gameplay, then you have nothing to worry about regarding ME3. If you didn't enjoy ME2's gameplay, then hopefully ME3's story will make up for it. 

I was actually hoping for something better than ME2.

I did enjoy ME2 otherwise I wouldn't even consider ME3. But ME2 had a lot of potential for improvement that I'm worried won't happen now. As much as I like the ME setting if ME3 ends up being just another average sequel, I don't see much reason for buying it. There are plenty of those around. Unfortunately these new signals suggests they want to go for averageness and cash in as much as they can.

Adding 20% more RPG, or removing 20% RPG isn't really the issue for me. It's more important for me if it fits the game. Those kind of concerns doesn't seem like something EA is fussed about unfortunately.

Sooner E3 comes the better. It will put a lot of souls to rest over this issue.

[MajesticJazz]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Wow, Jazz. Thanks for implying that I'm stupid.

Listen, I like games with tanks, healers, crafting, crowd control, items, etc. However, having them all thrown at me at once is a huge turn-off, as it is for many gamers. This is my problem with a lot of "hardcore" RPGs--they assume that I know how all the doodads work even though I have never seen them before.

It's be like if Portal opened with Test Chamber 17, or if on the first day of a calculus course they threw a million derivatives and logarithms at you even though this is your first calc class ever.

It also didn't help that DA:O's pacing was... sluggish, to say the least.

There was nothing wrong with the pacing of DAO as it was paced at the same rate of many other tactical RPGs.

I get it though, I'll just agree to disagree. It is clearly evident that you are (or your attitude towards RPGs) is the new target market of Bioware. You might be a prominent Bioware fan now which is great, but it is clear that by listening to you open up more and more that you are the "newage" RPG fan that wants a more "RPG-Lite" experience that is very button mashing or "pew pew" as you describe. I do not know how old you are but if you were around here during the BG and NWN/KOTOR days, then your head would probably explode.

Am I an RPG elitist? YES I am and at least I am honest enough to say it. Once upon a time I was like you, I would pick up a RPG and be taken to the character level up screen and would see crap like Dexterity, Intelligence, Endurance, Willpower and a whole bunch of nonsense like that. I would be turned off and I would go back to my NBA Jams and Mario Karts.....games that were more easy to pick up and play. However I was told that those types of games require a lot of strategy and you just have to learn the ins and outs. So I decided to take the plunge and it has been history ever since. 

Just because you find a game like DAO overwhelming doesn't imply that you're slow. It just implies that those types of games weren't meant for gamers like you and this is why until now, RPGs were never as profitable as FPS or Shooter games. Now don't get me wrong, RPGs WERE profitable, I mean.....how in the hell do you think Bioware survivied from 1998-2003 by JUST making those types of tactical RPGs? Bioware during that time had profit out of their azz and yet they did it by making PURE RPG games. People act like the only way to be profitable with RPG games is to go the "pew pew" route or "button mashing" route. Bioware was a $$$$ machine prior to the EA buyout. The problem is, EA wasn't satisfied with Bioware being a $$$$ machine so they made Bioware "tweak" their games to now become a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ machine. I guess that isn't bad if the only thing you care about is money.

Bioware is is walking on thin ice. People do not look at them like Gods like they used to 8 years ago. There are now other options. Eidos Montreal is cooking up a real Shooter/RPG hybrid in Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Bethesda is going to turn heads with Skyrim and Obsidian will eventually get their acts together and create that one huge hit like Bioware back in 1998. There is always a bigger fish.....

[Forsythia]

I thought the tweaking had already happened with ME2, but I guess that's not enough for EA.

Really, if BioWare screws this up, I think it's the final straw for them after Dragon Age 2. Then they'll be just another shooter developer for EA.

[Leonia]

Hey I am a big fan of BG/NWN/KOTOR and *I* am fine with RP-lite. It's not just something for the "new kids". I hate wasting time managing an inventory or spending countless hours going through some filler content to get on with the story. Does that make me a poor RPG fan?

And the pacing in DA:O was horrid. Fade? Deep Roads? There was a lot of crap that one had to get through to get on to the next plot point. Thank goodness for DA2's shorter experience, for all its faults, at least it didn't get boring halfway through.

[Galad22]

Mesina2 wrote...

I'd like for you to play Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War for 10-20 minutes.

BIG DIFFERENCES.

Let's just say that I don't like shooters okay.

And ME2 was too much of a pure shooter for my tastes.

[Darth Death]

Forsythia wrote...

I thought the tweaking had already happened with ME2, but I guess that's not enough for EA.

Really, if BioWare screws this up, I think it's the final straw for them after Dragon Age 2. Then they'll be just another shooter developer for EA.

They're not going to screw up so don't worry.

[Someone With Mass]

I have played KOTOR, and I can't say that I was overwhelmed by the RPG parts at all. They're actually rather easy to learn. Can't really see what's so complex and special about it or any other similar RPG that I would sorely miss if some if it was left out.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 05 mai 2011 - 04:07 .

[stonbw1]

I think you guys may be mistranslating the "broader audience" reference. To me, combat in ME2 was great, so why change it much? A better way to attract a "broader audience" is to make ME3 a stand alone game, not dependent on ME1 or ME2. From an investor's (read "old, rich folk's") perspective, the majority likely doesn't know anything about what a "shooter", "rpg", etc is.. Rather, they are concerned with the obvious: how do you get sales on a third installment? In theory, the sales would be less than the previous installments (which were not impressive compared to the big shooters), so how can we (investors) be confident this isn't a waste of money??
Broader audience = stand alone game.

[Walker White]

leonia42 wrote...

RPG elements usually refers to inventory and customisation, anything the player can have lots of control over.

That's a very new (as in late 90s-era) definition of the term.  Which is why some of us grognards bristle against this.

[MajesticJazz]

Walker White wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...
I can see why a game like DAO would be too much for you.

These types of statements are not helping your point.  All they do is suggest that you are a narrow part of the market that will never accept any change.

Some of us on the forums are very old school RPG players.  Back in the days when computer RPGs had text graphics (like Island of Kesmai, the first "MMO").  Or the old SSIs. Baldur's Gate, which everyone lauds as the holy grail, is a relatively new game.

And games continue to change.

There is a difference between changing as in evolving and taking a current formula and just making it better. Versus change as in taking something, stripping it down from what it really is/was and making something entirely new.

Baldur's Gate was nothing more than an evolution from RPGs such as Ultima and yet BG still held on to many of the core aspects that made games like Ultima so great. So BG from Ultima is an example of changing in the terms of evolving and making things better.

Dragon Age 2 was more of a change in direction from DAO from a tactical isometric dungeon scrolling RPG into just an 3rd Person Action/Adventure button mashing game with some RPG elements. DA2 from DAO is an example of stripping something down and taking away from what it really is/was and making something entirely new.

I am not opposed to change, as long as many of the core values still are present. What core RPG values will be present in ME3 is my main concern.

[didymos1120]

Forsythia wrote...

I thought the tweaking had already happened with ME2, but I guess that's not enough for EA.

That wasn't tweaking.  They completely overhauled the gameplay. 

[Galad22]

leonia42 wrote...

Hey I am a big fan of BG/NWN/KOTOR and *I* am fine with RP-lite. It's not just something for the "new kids". I hate wasting time managing an inventory or spending countless hours going through some filler content to get on with the story. Does that make me a poor RPG fan?

And the pacing in DA:O was horrid. Fade? Deep Roads? There was a lot of crap that one had to get through to get on to the next plot point. Thank goodness for DA2's shorter experience, for all its faults, at least it didn't get boring halfway through.

I got bored for teleporting ninjas in about ten hours and got annoyed crawling through same cave over five times quite soon.

[Leonia]

Walker White wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

RPG elements usually refers to inventory and customisation, anything the player can have lots of control over.

That's a very new (as in late 90s-era) definition of the term.  Which is why some of us grognards bristle against this.

Ah, yes. I bristle every time someon tries to define "traditional RPG" because there isn't a set definition (and everyone has their own idea as to what really qualifies). You get mad props for being an old-timer fan that has stuck around through all the changes. Most people just want the "good old days" back.

[Thompson family]

I agree with most of Majestic Jazz' post, the one that begins "There was nothing wrong with the pacing of DAO ..."


If other self-proclaimed RPG Elitists used that post as an example and quit accusing everyone who disagreed with them of being fools, they'd get more respect.

Modifié par Thompson family, 05 mai 2011 - 04:21 .