182 réponses à ce sujet

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

abaris wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

There are a few interesting points in this editorial, but the editorial also contradicts itself and loses its way at times. Is DA2 a pretty good game or not? The author seems to imply that if DA2 was DA:Kirkwall 1 or something, then it would be pretty good. But then says since it's DA2, it falls flat.

Yeah, that was my point. He spends quite some time explaining how it doesn't rise up to good old fashioned RPG standards, laments the decline of the RPG genre and says it's a great game.

I don't quite get what this guy is at, since I agree completely when he says its a bad thing to see RPGs in decline.

i have read the article numerous times and no where does he state that the mechanics of old are superior to what is begin used now.

[Drachasor]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

@ Drachasor

no. he explicitly states that it is a better game. however, those outdated designs of origins made it unique amonst the current rpgs. thats evident from him saying if it wasnt a sequel and instead a new series he would have loved it. his dissatisfaction as you are trying to point out, is that it is no longer a flawed gem like the original, but instead is starting to look more like the rest.

Read it in a bit more detail.  He clearly says superficially you'd think it was a better game, when it is not.  And no, he doesn't say he would have loved it if it was a new series, but rather that he would have praised certain elements; there's a big difference between the two.

no. he clearly praises almost every individual component. from the combat to the story to the characters he says that they are good or a vast improvement. he actually clearly states the reason for his disappointment.

Dragon Age II was a sequel to a title that specifically sold itself on its classic RPG bloodline, and for me its deviation from this path was an ultimately disappointing realisation.

There is nothing inbetween the lines that i fail to grasp. He clearly states that because it no longer adheres to the oldschool mechanics which he so enjoyed in origins.

As it stands currently, it seems that consumers emerge from Dragon Age II as the ultimate winners. Even with its changes to gameplay and presentation, Dragon Age II is a great game worthy of your time.

this ultimately reinforces my point. at the beginning and the end of his article he makes it a point to state regardless of his disappointment that his oldschool rpg is dying DA2 is still a great game.

Yeah, when you think something is great you say stuff like "It is not an unenjoyable experience for the most part".  He clearly thinks DA2 is not that great for most of the article, despite the fact that you'd think so by looking at it like a design proposal (e.g. seems to have the parts of a good game, but doesn't put them together right).

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Drachasor wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

@ Drachasor

no. he explicitly states that it is a better game. however, those outdated designs of origins made it unique amonst the current rpgs. thats evident from him saying if it wasnt a sequel and instead a new series he would have loved it. his dissatisfaction as you are trying to point out, is that it is no longer a flawed gem like the original, but instead is starting to look more like the rest.

Read it in a bit more detail.  He clearly says superficially you'd think it was a better game, when it is not.  And no, he doesn't say he would have loved it if it was a new series, but rather that he would have praised certain elements; there's a big difference between the two.

no. he clearly praises almost every individual component. from the combat to the story to the characters he says that they are good or a vast improvement. he actually clearly states the reason for his disappointment.

Dragon Age II was a sequel to a title that specifically sold itself on its classic RPG bloodline, and for me its deviation from this path was an ultimately disappointing realisation.

There is nothing inbetween the lines that i fail to grasp. He clearly states that because it no longer adheres to the oldschool mechanics which he so enjoyed in origins.

As it stands currently, it seems that consumers emerge from Dragon Age II as the ultimate winners. Even with its changes to gameplay and presentation, Dragon Age II is a great game worthy of your time.

this ultimately reinforces my point. at the beginning and the end of his article he makes it a point to state regardless of his disappointment that his oldschool rpg is dying DA2 is still a great game.

Yeah, when you think something is great you say stuff like "It is not an unenjoyable experience for the most part".  He clearly thinks DA2 is not that great for most of the article, despite the fact that you'd think so by looking at it like a design proposal (e.g. seems to have the parts of a good game, but doesn't put them together right).

No for the last time his disappointment comes from it not being origins. If it was a bad game he wouldnt recommend it to the readers at the end. He has no reason to disprove the "points" that you have fabricated in your very small mind with his final paragraphs. I will not reply to you any longer troll as it is clear you are an idiot. Good Day sir!!!

[Romantiq]

Should be renamed to EA and the decline of good games.

[bEVEsthda]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
ok. i asked because i was trying to understand your opinion. not hating on your opinion. merely trying to understand where you are coming from.

Oh, I do want to be understood, so again: I'm coming from that DA2 is a butt-ugly, tasteless mismash of clashing styles, many unreasonable, many plagiary.

[ref]

It's all about money.

[tek427]

I thought the article was a bit depressing, but I don't think it means the end for the RPG genre. I've never played CoD or Halo or any of those online shooters so I can't comment on that. Even though some games may try to add RPG elements in them, they'll never be as good as real RPGs. But that's just my opinion.

[abaris]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

I will not reply to you any longer troll as it is clear you are an idiot. Good Day sir!!!

Stands to reason who's the troll here. Namecalling usually is a pretty good indicator. And that's regardless of me not being the very person being called an idiot.

tek427 wrote...

I thought the article was a bit
depressing, but I don't think it means the end for the RPG genre. I've
never played CoD or Halo or any of those online shooters so I can't
comment on that. Even though some games may try to add RPG elements in
them, they'll never be as good as real RPGs. But that's just my
opinion.

These shooters have their place and can be fun. Its mixing the genres that usually doesn't end well. For me the most apalling aspect were the exploding bodies. And probably the poor execution of their storyline. I never owned the whole game, I just borrowed it from a friend and found myself too bored to even continue after the first couple of hours.

Mind you, I mean the execution of the story, not the actual premise. This in itself could have been a promising approach.

Modifié par abaris, 20 mai 2011 - 09:24 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

abaris wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

"Somewhere during the two-year regeneration of Shepard between the first and second titles, the Mass Effect universe gave up on item-carrying and huge skill-trees in favour of simplified, dynamic levelling and looting. By reducing the choice players had in regards to levelling or loot selection, BioWare was able to create a more cohesive and uniform storyline for all players. While this shift worked for Mass Effect, it rang hollow when applied to Dragon Age II. After being sold as the modern re-imagining of the classic PC games of yore, its 180-degree refocus away from the elements that made it so special in the first case made the game feel empty and cold by comparison. "

THIS sums it all up perfectly. ;P

Yeah, but he does a 180 degree with his next line about DAII being a great game.

So what was his opinion?

I agree with the above quote and he worked his arguments a lot to get there. So why do a turn?

his argument was never that da2 was a bad game. just that it didnt have the spirit of past rpgs.

"...a great game worthy of your time" he says.

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

his argument was never that da2 was a bad game. just that it didnt have the spirit of past rpgs.

"...a great game worthy of your time" he says.

Yep. The problem with DA2, apparently, isn't that the game isn't good, it's that it isn't trying to be a "classic RPG" anymore. Because, apparently, part of the value of DAO was that it was a revival of classic RPG gameplay even if classic RPG gameplay isn't any good.

But really, we've been seeing this sort of thing on these boards for months now. And on the ME boards too -- I remember a post that ME3 should go back to ME1's stat-based aiming even though that would make the game less fun than ME2, because it's more important for the game to be a "true RPG" than for the game to be fun.

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...
Yep. The problem with DA2, apparently, isn't that the game isn't good, it's that it isn't trying to be a "classic RPG" anymore. Because, apparently, part of the value of DAO was that it was a revival of classic RPG gameplay even if classic RPG gameplay isn't any good.

But really, we've been seeing this sort of thing on these boards for months now. And on the ME boards too -- I remember a post that ME3 should go back to ME1's stat-based aiming even though that would make the game less fun than ME2, because it's more important for the game to be a "true RPG" than for the game to be fun.

You do know there are a number of people find stat based combat to be more enjoyable then twitch based. Taking stats out of the equation doesn't make a gam fun for all.

[daemon1129]

From what I can see from playing recent big RPG games is that it is much more obvious as a money making product rather than art/entertainment. The devs are clearly limited by publishers; having to approach bigger crowd, it must be more accessible. If they can cut corners, they cut them as much as they can. Preorder sales should be enough to make the game profitable, so they just need to hype up the game and release without play testing.

Few big companies are trying to be more ambitious and introduce modern mechanics into their games. Most of the other just have gimmicks that once again revolves around cheap cost, more accessible, and gimmicks that they can put into trailers.

The whole RPGs aren't about stats and looting are just excuses if you ask me. There are tons have fun to have in managing stats, builds and looting epic items. These might not seem to have anything to do with role-playing, RPGs were the only genres that have these gameplay. If you remove them from future RPGs, we will never get to have depth in gameplay anymore.

There are some nice alternatives like Perks (Fallout 3, Skyrim). They have much thought put into it, and players need to plan ahead and decide what to pick. ME's and DA's leveling need no planing nor much thought to decide what to pick. In ME2, you can just shoot as an Adept and still win the game (normal). In DA2, every Cross class combo can be easily abused to own anything.

You no longer need to think about how to maximize dps without running out of mana or dying for obivous reasons.  You don't need to be prepared for dungeons, buying potoins and other consumables; health regenerates after every battle, or worse, within battle for free.  All of these are to let players to easily blast through the game to learn the plot and make "decisions".  However when it is not that great, or the ending isn't too satisfly, the whole game falls apart.  There are little moments to cherish, but the whole game is forgettable.

This is exactly why DA2 is such a disappointment to many.  If you make a game that is supose to be a RPG that is about plot and interactions and decisions, and it failed to deliver, what is there to love, or to enjoy about it?  The gameplay sucked, the terrible graphics/reused dungeons makes it impossible to immerse yourself into it.  The whole marketing to CoD crowd makes it worst. 

If this is the future of AAA RPGs, then I suggest BioWare to start making FPS before they influence other good companies to follow suit.

Modifié par daemon1129, 20 mai 2011 - 10:29 .

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But really, we've been seeing this sort of thing on these boards for months now. And on the ME boards too -- I remember a post that ME3 should go back to ME1's stat-based aiming even though that would make the game less fun than ME2, because it's more important for the game to be a "true RPG" than for the game to be fun.

You do know there are a number of people find stat based combat to be more enjoyable then twitch based. Taking stats out of the equation doesn't make a gam fun for all.

True, but irrelevant. I'm not making an interpretation above; the actual argument wasn't that stat-based combat was fun, it was that fun didn't matter.

Yeah, that was an extreme position even for this board. But the article writer seems to have tied himself in the same knot.

[AlanC9]

daemon1129 wrote...

There are tons have fun to have in managing stats, builds and looting epic items. These might not seem to have anything to do with role-playing, RPGs were the only genres that have these gameplay.

But since I like role-playing and don't like that gameplay, does that mean I don't like RPGs?

[daemon1129]

AlanC9 wrote...

daemon1129 wrote...

There are tons have fun to have in managing stats, builds and looting epic items. These might not seem to have anything to do with role-playing, RPGs were the only genres that have these gameplay.

But since I like role-playing and don't like that gameplay, does that mean I don't like RPGs?

What I was trying to say was that these mechanics were traditinally the core gameplay of RPGs.  Now they are getting streamlined and removed.   I would like to see them back with modern technology.  

I don't believe stats have anything to do with Roleplaying, but until a genre comes out that focuses on said gameplay, I don't think EVERY AAA RPG should remove them completely. DA was like our last bastion of hope and they're removing them one title after another.  There is still a market out there for more in depth stats and grinding/looting gameplay other than MMOs. 

[Satyricon331]

I have to wonder about some of the data interpretation. It was years before I finished BG1, which I finished only once, and long after I finished BG2. Metrics would have said I didn't finish - but I loved the game and have recommended it to people, and I just didn't care for that maze at the end and could see the remaining battles wouldn't be as fun as a new player character. I'm chronic restarter anyway. It doesn't mean I thought the game was bad or needed streamlining (apart from the abysmal Vancian magic thing).

Plus it might just be a function of the game's success. Maybe RPG fanatics are prone to proselytizing the game to friends who don't really like RPGs and never will (but don't realize it). Or maybe it's true of any successful game that you have people buying into the acclaim and finding out it's not for them after all. How do the rates compare to other acclaimed games? There are all sorts of questions a good statistician would have looked at before leaping to conclusions.

[HyperLimited]

Dragon Age 2 was fine. It just had too much "awesome" in it. I hope whoever thought of THAT idea got fired or something...

[augustburnt]

 I stopped reading when he sad the story line was better in DA2, only a complete **** would prefer the pathetic story line of DA2

[tez19]

Look at the PC nerd crowd absolutely SEETHING. It is hilarious to see. Console's are taking over, have been for a while now, get used to it SEETHERS.

[Angelsdawn]

"it is a vastly improved sequel – gameplay is far more fluid and dynamic, conversations are much more in-depth and the plotline is intriguing and engaging"

I can't believe anyone would think the combat system was better in DAII. Yes its faster, but way too anime for my tastes. I was laughing half the time as I soldiered through the fights. Sure Dragon Age is a fantasy world but there was a line and they crossed it(Suspension of disbelief anyone?). Nothing feels believable or real after I see mages teleporting and rogues back to backing through the ground. Its silly really, and the writer at IGN actually thinks it was an improvement. I stopped reading there to be honest.

I found the story to be interesting sometimes but there were other times when the lack of choices just ruined the experience. Some of the dialogue wasn't all that great either, and really, there were only 3 types of responses to choose from? I get that it's hard to represent every personality out there but at least DAO had the choice of being neutral and well... numerous other people.

Hawke rising through society wouldn't've been a breakthrough storyline but it would have at least been different compared to the run of the mill "let's save the world" epic. But it was poorly executed unfortunately. Hopefully DA3 will mix elements of both and they will lean towards creating a heavier, more adult and complex RPG. When thinking of the combat system they could take out what made it unrealistic or violated several of DAO's own codex-ed rules, slow it down a tiny bit, and still make it button of awesome material. Re integrate real stealth, traps etc etc... perhaps make the environment more a part of someone's tactics, a bit like ME did.

Witcher 2 and DA2 have been compared a lot lately but I feel they should look to CD Projekt for advice if they really want to create something immersive and memorable again.

"And so, with a heavy heart, it appears we should say goodbye to the RPG genre of old."

And i'm sick to death of articles insinuating the heavy RPG is dead. It might be dead for a while but some gaming company will usually pick it right up again.

Modifié par Angelsdawn, 21 mai 2011 - 04:19 .

[jds1bio]

How are RPG's dying when:

a) games include more role-playing elements now than ever before (sports games with rookie-to-pro create-a-player options, FPS multiplayer with leveling systems, RPGs spanning action to tactical to strategic, strategy games with "green" to "veteran" units, etc.)

at least 6-10 new RPGs are released across the world across all gaming platforms each year?

[IanPolaris]

The author should look at the VChartz estimated sales of DA2 and DAO because it seems like he has it backwards.

-Polaris

[kglaser]

Why is this same thread in two different subforums at once?

[AlanC9]

daemon1129 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

daemon1129 wrote...

There are tons have fun to have in managing stats, builds and looting epic items. These might not seem to have anything to do with role-playing, RPGs were the only genres that have these gameplay.

But since I like role-playing and don't like that gameplay, does that mean I don't like RPGs?

What I was trying to say was that these mechanics were traditinally the core gameplay of RPGs.  Now they are getting streamlined and removed.   I would like to see them back with modern technology.  

I don't believe stats have anything to do with Roleplaying, but until a genre comes out that focuses on said gameplay, I don't think EVERY AAA RPG should remove them completely. DA was like our last bastion of hope and they're removing them one title after another.  There is still a market out there for more in depth stats and grinding/looting gameplay other than MMOs. 

OK, gotcha.

Personally, I can't stand grinding/looting gameplay. I don't necessarily want it to die -- I just want to see it confined to games that I'm utterly uninterested in. I think Diablo's just great, as long as I never have to actually play the damn thing.