288 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

How so? They are both party based games, each with the same basic tactical/stragety implementation. Though it was done much better in Origins, they are still recognisable in general.

The mechanics are so different as to be completely incompatible.  Even something as simple as what the attributes do is dramatically different from one game to the other.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

simfamSP wrote...
How so? They are both party based games, each with the same basic tactical/stragety implementation. Though it was done much better in Origins, they are still recognisable in general.

The mechanics are so different as to be completely incompatible.  Even something as simple as what the attributes do is dramatically different from one game to the other.

You could always consider it the equivalent of an edition change in the rulebook between games, or that either game follows an alternative system based on the same setting, as happened with the craze of the OGL a few years back.
- For those wondering, OGL basically allowed most editorials to use the base D&D 3rd edition system for essentially free, and thus in early 2000's the market was flooded with dual system RPG rulebooks (using the in-house system as well as OGL system) -.

[schalafi]

I hate to bring it up, but going back for a minute to BG and BG2 I have to say they were my idea of a first game and a sequel. The same original characters were in BG2, It had the same rule sets and pretty much the same user interface as the first game, and even though it did not have the same cities or areas as BG, I still consider it a sequel because of carrying the same chars over from BG.

Starting a game with all new characters, all new territory, and only a few token appearances of characters from Origins isn't enough to label it a sequel. It would have been a sequel, imo, if it continued the warden's story and retained the main characters from Origins.

[MonkeyLungs]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

How so? They are both party based games, each with the same basic tactical/stragety implementation. Though it was done much better in Origins, they are still recognisable in general.

The mechanics are so different as to be completely incompatible.  Even something as simple as what the attributes do is dramatically different from one game to the other.

The ruleset change really annoys me. Why not just refine the ruleset? Reboots suck.

[In Exile]

schalafi wrote...

I hate to bring it up, but going back for a minute to BG and BG2 I have to say they were my idea of a first game and a sequel. The same original characters were in BG2, It had the same rule sets and pretty much the same user interface as the first game, and even though it did not have the same cities or areas as BG, I still consider it a sequel because of carrying the same chars over from BG.

Starting a game with all new characters, all new territory, and only a few token appearances of characters from Origins isn't enough to label it a sequel. It would have been a sequel, imo, if it continued the warden's story and retained the main characters from Origins.

I can't consider BG II a sequel. It's an alternate history for me (where I start out as the Bhaalspawn post BG). The start of BGII is too incompatible with my BG playthrough, with the dead rising.

[ipgd]

schalafi wrote...

Starting a game with all new characters, all new territory, and only a few token appearances of characters from Origins isn't enough to label it a sequel. It would have been a sequel, imo, if it continued the warden's story and retained the main characters from Origins.

The principle character of Origins was Thedas. DA2 has the same setting and thematic elements, which are just as important to a narrative as its actors.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

You could always consider it the equivalent of an edition change in the rulebook between games, or that either game follows an alternative system based on the same setting, as happened with the craze of the OGL a few years back.
- For those wondering, OGL basically allowed most editorials to use the base D&D 3rd edition system for essentially free, and thus in early 2000's the market was flooded with dual system RPG rulebooks (using the in-house system as well as OGL system) -.

Good edition changes are explained with in-setting events.  Recall the Time of Troubles or the Greyhawk Wars to bridge the gap from 1st edition AD&D to 2nd edition AD&D.

Otherwise it's just a retcon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I can't consider BG II a sequel. It's an alternate history for me (where I start out as the Bhaalspawn post BG). The start of BGII is too incompatible with my BG playthrough, with the dead rising.

At least yours could arguably be explained with resurrection magic.

I never even met Jaheira.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
At least yours could arguably be explained with resurrection magic.

I never even met Jaheira.

That's a good point. There's still the issue of the party just not matching up.

[Skilled Seeker]

ipgd wrote...

schalafi wrote...

Starting a game with all new characters, all new territory, and only a few token appearances of characters from Origins isn't enough to label it a sequel. It would have been a sequel, imo, if it continued the warden's story and retained the main characters from Origins.

The principle character of Origins was Thedas. DA2 has the same setting and thematic elements, which are just as important to a narrative as its actors.

This. Not every damn series has to have you play as the same person throughout.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 26 mai 2011 - 06:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That's a good point. There's still the issue of the party just not matching up.

Yes.  If you finish BG with a party of Xzar, Xan, Garrick, Shar-Teel, and Faldorn, where's the continuity?

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
That's a good point. There's still the issue of the party just not matching up.

Yes.  If you finish BG with a party of Xzar, Xan, Garrick, Shar-Teel, and Faldorn, where's the continuity?

Much like Fallout and its sequels, the sheer amount of variation forced the developers to stablish a canon. It's not the choice we'd like, but it's what the resources allowed for at the time.

Modifié par Xewaka, 26 mai 2011 - 09:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

Much like Fallout and its sequels, the sheer amount of variation forced the developers to stablish a canon. It's not the choice we'd like, but it's what the resources allowed for at the time.

Except it wasn't necessary.  If they'd written the opening of BG2 just slightly differently, that problem goes away.

simfamSP wrote...

That's one of the things I didn't like about BGII, the game just assumes you were with Imoen, Minsc and company (the default party really) all the time.

It's one of several reasons why BG2 ranks only 5th in my ranking of BioWare's games.

[dragon-boy]

I've been playing DA:2 since it came out and iam waiting for the new dlc item pack to come out on PS3 but i want to know if anyone can tell me since they've confirmed Dragon Age 3 does this mean they'll not be any more big DLC like in dragon age origins.

[schalafi]

So what would be the criterion for a genuine sequel to any game? What makes it different from an add-on? Did you think Awakening was a sequel because it had a cameo appearance by Alistair, and you could import your warden? I always thought a sequel continued a storyline whether it was a game or a novel. Maybe I just have the wrong idea about just what a sequel is....?

[Sylvius the Mad]

SoU and HotU were excellent sequels. Some might not call them sequels because they weren't standalone games (you needed NWN to run them), but they were standalone campaigns that were at least as engaging as the original.

To be a proper sequel, I think, the games need to share a ruleset. They need to be new stories told within the same basic game structure.

Now, that said, I don't see any particular value in a game being a sequel.

[Ariella]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

You could always consider it the equivalent of an edition change in the rulebook between games, or that either game follows an alternative system based on the same setting, as happened with the craze of the OGL a few years back.
- For those wondering, OGL basically allowed most editorials to use the base D&D 3rd edition system for essentially free, and thus in early 2000's the market was flooded with dual system RPG rulebooks (using the in-house system as well as OGL system) -.

Good edition changes are explained with in-setting events.  Recall the Time of Troubles or the Greyhawk Wars to bridge the gap from 1st edition AD&D to 2nd edition AD&D.

Otherwise it's just a retcon.

No no no... game mechanics should serve the story, not have story written around mechanics, that's just WRONG.The ToT, all the works done to transition to 3E then 4E, it was mindblowingly silly, and got to the point where they got away from the spirit of the Realms.

I pray that NEVER happens with Thedas.

[MonkeyLungs]

In an RPG you don't have to bend the mechanics to the story. RPG's are as much about the rulesets and mechanics as the story and the rulesets and mechanics come first. Then the story gets built. If you keep having to walk over established lore and mechanics to tell the story you are doing it wrong.

The statistics, the mechanics, the ruleset, the lore, the character sheets full of info etc. All of these things are the game, paryt of the game, part of the fun. Start taking away all the rulesets and mechanics, start limiting the players knowledge of them or ability to act within the ruleset and you start to diminish the RPG and you might as well just make devil may cry 18 (it has characters and levelling up and stuff).

[tonnactus]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

^ To futher that, this need not apply only to D&D or even RPGs. In general, I enjoy games where enemies have access only to the abilities that the PC has (although, sometimes they get them sooner than you can).

Sometimes? The darkspawn,not even elite ones,have access to the "Berserk" specialisation right at Ostalgar.
Enemy mabari and spiders also had access to overwhelm right at the start,the wardens mabari didnt.

[DariusKalera]

Ariella wrote...

No no no... game mechanics should serve the story, not have story written around mechanics, that's just WRONG.The ToT, all the works done to transition to 3E then 4E, it was mindblowingly silly, and got to the point where they got away from the spirit of the Realms.

I pray that NEVER happens with Thedas.

It already has.  There were numerous retcons to the story of Thedas so that the developers could have NPCs with abilities that, originally, they could not have.  They rewrote the story to include mechanics such as teleporting to make it more "awesome".

[Feanor_II]

I guess the OP must be ironic, because unfortunately DA2 isn't even a pale shadow of what BG was and is.

[Ariella]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

In an RPG you don't have to bend the mechanics to the story. RPG's are as much about the rulesets and mechanics as the story and the rulesets and mechanics come first. Then the story gets built. If you keep having to walk over established lore and mechanics to tell the story you are doing it wrong.

Lore's part of the story, not the mechanics. I'll give you some examples: World of Darkness seceond edition there was no big fan faire about the rules changes. It was what it was and nothing really compromised the lore of the world White Wolf had set up.

A retconn is when one takes Lore/Story elements and changes them. Example: A change in Warcraft says the eredar were corrupted by Sargeras now rather than the other way around which was the original concept in Warcraft Universe.

The statistics, the mechanics, the ruleset, the lore, the character sheets full of info etc. All of these things are the game, paryt of the game, part of the fun. Start taking away all the rulesets and mechanics, start limiting the players knowledge of them or ability to act within the ruleset and you start to diminish the RPG and you might as well just make devil may cry 18 (it has characters and levelling up and stuff).

Mechanics are needed to simulate the hand of fate/luck etc. The best description of what an RPG is is something I read in the Player's Handbook 2nd Edition: That Role Playing is the old game of pretend with rules. But if a rule isn't working for you (like say level limits for races) the DM can dump it or modify it. Can't do that in a CRPG of course but the rules are a framework for the story and they shouldn't intrude on the story, and they definately shouldn't become the story.

[Ariella]

DariusKalera wrote...

Ariella wrote...

No no no... game mechanics should serve the story, not have story written around mechanics, that's just WRONG.The ToT, all the works done to transition to 3E then 4E, it was mindblowingly silly, and got to the point where they got away from the spirit of the Realms.

I pray that NEVER happens with Thedas.

It already has.  There were numerous retcons to the story of Thedas so that the developers could have NPCs with abilities that, originally, they could not have.  They rewrote the story to include mechanics such as teleporting to make it more "awesome".

That was already diuscussed and explained as invisability and is not teleporting.