252 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Reading this, I get the feeling I wouldn't enjoy TW2. I liked TW, but only finished half of a second run because I just couldn't get past playing one character in a game that is pretty decent for role playing aspects. By the way, your previous post with the polar bear picture (pretty funny) was spot on for me, well done.

It's a good roleplaying game. Integrates a lot of skills into gameplay, dialog, plenty of choices with actual consequences.

The whole of Act 2 and parts of Act 3 are completely different depending on your choices in Act 1, for example.

Reading in-game books to learn about monsters (and their weaknesses) is still there and great. Equipment and customisation is greatly improved over Witcher 1. The combat system is more tactical action as opposed to any form of traditional RPG combat, it's a bit like a more fluid and responsive Gothic.

But if making your own character is a big thing, then you probably won't like it much simply because you're stuck with Geralt.

Oh, another mechanic they borrowed was the framed narrative (for the first part of it). The reliance on cinematics too.

When I say "consolised", I mean it basically in terms of how the menus and UI is setup. The control scheme also looks like it would work well with a gamepad. Not that they stereotyped console gamers as simple or stupid and cut down on the game to cater to the stereotype. Far from it.

[Feanor_II]

I don't understand what Mr. Laidlaw talks about when he says "deeper RPG mechanichs" when the main problem of DA2 was the oversimplification.

In my opnion ¿deeper RPG mechanichs? let's go back to DA:O and we can start talking about things such as open world (or at least open areas)

[Harid]

People overstate Baldur's Gate's complexity.

The only complexity was D&D, 2nd ed. The game itself was rather simple, and rather easy.

If you had access to DA:O's gambit, I'm sorry, tactics system, the game would arguably be easier than Dragon Age: Origins.

Modifié par Harid, 29 mai 2011 - 10:01 .

[-Semper-]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I was dissapointed by DA2, but at this point I feel legitimately cheated and irate.

Welcome to my world.

and yet you've bought the game knowing that it will be this bad.

[Dexter111]

I think he has been playing The Witcher 2 and was reffering to that for a bit.

[TheStrand221]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

But IMO, the mechanics matter less than the design and execution. The Witcher 2 proves that. It's a different kind of game, but it uses many mechanics that people hated in Dragon Age 2. The difference is that they executed them very well.

No amount of polish will make me enjoy The Witcher's combat system.

I'm not sure whether you, Sylvis, mean the first or the second game. I haven't played the first, but I want to comment on the second and say that I agree.

mrcrusty, I'm not sure what mechanics TW2 uses that are in DAII. They're completely different. And TW2's combat sucks. I really like the game. I don't want anyone to think that I'm bashing it. But combat is a pile of crap. DAII's mechanics have some logical problems, yes. I know Sylvius agrees that enemies following entirely different rules as far as health/damage go is absurd, for example. But actually playing a combat in DAII is a lot of fun for me.

It does?  Monkey butt!  I wish I'd realized that during my 30 hour plathrough... for Act I.  Or did you, perhaps, mean in your opinion?  How silly of me to misinterpret your statement.  I apologize.

The Witcher 2 is an action adventure game with granularity of ability builds, crafting, and equipment use not an RPG in the Bioware mold.  Geralt isn't your own character and speaks a lot for himself, but you get to make some very important decisions for him that affect major plot elements of the story.

There is definitely significant overlap between the DA and TW fan bases, but it isn't game everyone here will like.

[AAHook2]

mrcrusty wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...
snip

While I agree, that would be incredibly difficult from a technical standpoint to accomplish. It's also not taking into account the possibility of your character's personality developing over time, as you have one preset personality you choose on creation.


You can't really do that properly if you define a character's personality on creation.

As for a voiced protagonist, I think paraphrasing could work if done well, but honestly, I much prefer the Alpha Protocol style of dialog options where they give you a personality tone. Instead of picking words and being angry that they don't match up with what your character says, you're able to reply in a "professional" manner, a "suave" manner, an "aggressive" manner, a "sarcastic" manner, an "honest" manner and so on.

-----

Finaly, the personality development we had in Dragon Age 2 was shallow. That's all there is to it. I understand that it's a result of time and technical limitations and I did like the idea of dialog and tone changing automatically to reinforce the personality. It's a good idea, but Hawke's three personalities were shallow. I'm nice, I'm "funny" or I'm angry. Wow, that passes for character depth these days?

It's things like that which make people think that Dragon Age 2 is less of an RPG or is a dumbed down one.

If people like that, more power to them. Dragon Age 2 is not a bad game when looked as a whole, especially compared to what else is on the market.

I think the balance would be for the game and the dialogue to adjust the tone of the voice according to the choices of tone the player favors.
A sort of sliding scale for personality...
There was a little bit of that actually in Dragon Age 2. I had the vague feeling that some reactions were being adjusted for the tone I most often picked. It was far too vague though and really wasn't consistent enough for me to more than note in passing.
I realize it may be asking a lot but I think if you want to define ambition for this genre, it has to come from the want to improve on what works in a drastic manner.
I liked the gate dialogue text in Origins. It was kind of like a mini-game. I did take into consideration that in Origins you chose a voice for your character and I thought this to be a general trait note. It doesn't mean that because I chose "cocky" my character could no longer be anything other than cocky. 

I think it would be neat if you could determine your character's general disposition, and this would basically cull the diffrent resoponses down. For example a more solemn or professional character would get fewer options to joke, but NPCs and other characters would consider what was said to be more serious and would react as such.
This is why I liked the Coersion stat so much. You got more dialogue options out of it. It was something I made a point to invest in.
I think it would be great to have a main character note, then have a variable set of Coersion or personality adjusters that could temper or change the tone of a character over the time played.

Logistics aside, it would be closer to what I think is breakthrough territory in interactive RPG storytelling.
Railroad tracks aren't doing it. Voicing the protagonist should be only step one, really.  Stopping at railroaded dialogue and narrative structure and just being happy with a voice acted protagonist is not ambitious or groundbreaking to me.  RPG developers should be looking beyond.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

AAHook2 wrote...

I think the balance would be for the game and the dialogue to adjust the tone of the voice according to the choices of tone the player favors.
A sort of sliding scale for personality...
There was a little bit of that actually in Dragon Age 2. I had the vague feeling that some reactions were being adjusted for the tone I most often picked. It was far too vague though and really wasn't consistent enough for me to more than note in passing.
I realize it may be asking a lot but I think if you want to define ambition for this genre, it has to come from the want to improve on what works in a drastic manner.
I liked the gate dialogue text in Origins. It was kind of like a mini-game. I did take into consideration that in Origins you chose a voice for your character and I thought this to be a general trait note. It doesn't mean that because I chose "cocky" my character could no longer be anything other than cocky. 

I think it would be neat if you could determine your character's general disposition, and this would basically cull the diffrent resoponses down. For example a more solemn or professional character would get fewer options to joke, but NPCs and other characters would consider what was said to be more serious and would react as such.
This is why I liked the Coersion stat so much. You got more dialogue options out of it. It was something I made a point to invest in.
I think it would be great to have a main character note, then have a variable set of Coersion or personality adjusters that could temper or change the tone of a character over the time played.

Logistics aside, it would be closer to what I think is breakthrough territory in interactive RPG storytelling.
Railroad tracks aren't doing it. Voicing the protagonist should be only step one, really.  Stopping at railroaded dialogue and narrative structure and just being happy with a voice acted protagonist is not ambitious or groundbreaking to me.  RPG developers should be looking beyond.

What you're describing is what happens in Alpha Protocol, really. They just don't have the conversational skills.

But, I like the idea of the game tracking your dominant personality (happens in Alpha Protocol). Perhaps not adjusting your dialog as a result, but will cause NPCs to make a comment, and change the disposition of certain ones depending on their own personalities that would have consequences on the narrative and/or quests... Again... happens in Alpha Protocol.

Maybe you should try it out. Gameplay and level design fall pretty flat and it's got a voiced protagonist (who isn't very good imo) but when it comes to dialog systems, reputation, NPC disposition, choices and consequences, it's definitely one of the better games to come out in years. Lol.

[Teredan]

I get really upset with the not too complex attitude, is the majority that stupid?
If I don't like a genre then it's most likely not because it's to complex.
I find it way more relatable if people that don't like rpgs just can't identy themself with them which breaks their immersion in the game. In the same way I can't identify myself with singleplayer shooters, I'm always thinking "shootin shooting, what's supposed to be fun about this monotony?". The reason is not that they're to hard to play for me....

Really jumping the first reason of why people dislike rpgs is just bad thinking.

Modifié par Teredan, 29 mai 2011 - 11:52 .

[lazuli]

In Exile wrote...

I think melee AoE is being cut, at least as FF. Though I agree - the lack of a cone makes it hard to know what's going on. Like hidding mage AOE. I believe the upgraded cone of cold does splash damage.

You're thinking of Winter's Grasp with its stealth AoE upgrade.  I am all for clarity in game mechanics and skill effects. Dragon Age 2 came a long way from Origins in that regard, but there's still more to be done.

As a side note, I think the whole attribute system needs to be seriously rebalanced, especially in terms of item requirements and the health bar.  I suppose the health bar wouldn't need to be changed much if enemy damage could be balanced better.

As yet another side note, runes need to be overhauled.  The current system promots hoarding way too much.  Maybe I'm just playing the game wrong, but I felt afraid to use runes on the only playthrough I ever completed.  The system is too punitive and reeks of the 1990's.

[AAHook2]

doubled on me.

Modifié par AAHook2, 29 mai 2011 - 04:22 .

[AAHook2]

mrcrusty wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

I think the balance would be for the game and the dialogue to adjust the tone of the voice according to the choices of tone the player favors.
A sort of sliding scale for personality...
There was a little bit of that actually in Dragon Age 2. I had the vague feeling that some reactions were being adjusted for the tone I most often picked. It was far too vague though and really wasn't consistent enough for me to more than note in passing.
I realize it may be asking a lot but I think if you want to define ambition for this genre, it has to come from the want to improve on what works in a drastic manner.
I liked the gate dialogue text in Origins. It was kind of like a mini-game. I did take into consideration that in Origins you chose a voice for your character and I thought this to be a general trait note. It doesn't mean that because I chose "cocky" my character could no longer be anything other than cocky. 

I think it would be neat if you could determine your character's general disposition, and this would basically cull the diffrent resoponses down. For example a more solemn or professional character would get fewer options to joke, but NPCs and other characters would consider what was said to be more serious and would react as such.
This is why I liked the Coersion stat so much. You got more dialogue options out of it. It was something I made a point to invest in.
I think it would be great to have a main character note, then have a variable set of Coersion or personality adjusters that could temper or change the tone of a character over the time played.

Logistics aside, it would be closer to what I think is breakthrough territory in interactive RPG storytelling.
Railroad tracks aren't doing it. Voicing the protagonist should be only step one, really.  Stopping at railroaded dialogue and narrative structure and just being happy with a voice acted protagonist is not ambitious or groundbreaking to me.  RPG developers should be looking beyond.

What you're describing is what happens in Alpha Protocol, really. They just don't have the conversational skills.

But, I like the idea of the game tracking your dominant personality (happens in Alpha Protocol). Perhaps not adjusting your dialog as a result, but will cause NPCs to make a comment, and change the disposition of certain ones depending on their own personalities that would have consequences on the narrative and/or quests... Again... happens in Alpha Protocol.

Maybe you should try it out. Gameplay and level design fall pretty flat and it's got a voiced protagonist (who isn't very good imo) but when it comes to dialog systems, reputation, NPC disposition, choices and consequences, it's definitely one of the better games to come out in years. Lol.

I might do that mrcrusty, but generally I try to stay away from non-fantasy RPGs. No particular reason. It's just not my cup-oh. I might give it a shot though. That's what got me to try Origins. Someone, whose opinion I really respect said to try it if I liked fantasy RPG.

As for adjusting dialogue, I guess I would want the system to show me the choices that fit my dominant personality first, and perhaps have a separate section like "More" for more alternative dialogue choices.

It's not much of a jump from what Dragon Age 2 had actually. There were standard responses on the right side of the wheel and more interrogative and specific responses on the left.
It would be great if there were more of an effort to organize and customize the wheel according to how a player is progressing through the game in terms of attitude, personality and tone and morality.

To voice it would simply require the actor to deliver more lines in different ways, the same lines in more varied tones or both. I mean, really how different is it from having actors who play Companions say several different responses? I mean, you can ask an actor to play more than one role, use different accents, tones...They're actors.
Just bring more choice to the player. That's money well spent in an RPG.
I felt that Origins was doing this to some degree. If you had invested in Coercion, a Persuade option and or a Intimidate option would appear. If you had been following more of Morrigan's philosophy you would see a lot of [Lie] optional dialogue.
Such variation is what breathes life into an RPG. It won't fail.

[Sidney]

Harid wrote...

People overstate Baldur's Gate's complexity.

The only complexity was D&D, 2nd ed. The game itself was rather simple, and rather easy.

If you had access to DA:O's gambit, I'm sorry, tactics system, the game would arguably be easier than Dragon Age: Origins.

Yep, the 3E rules were basically a no brainers but then again it wasn't like DAO was a mind-bending task either. As you said the tactics system makes things easier. 95% of all fights could be auto-run in DAO or DA2 off nothing but tactics and you'd win.

People seem to confuse the Byzantine and arcane with the deep. The leveling system in Oblivion wasn't "complex" it was awkward and dumb as you can see by the number of FAQ's telling you how to game it. The inventory system of ME1 was certainly "involving" but it was neither complex nor deep. You can constantly bolt some other element to a game to give it the illusion of depth (I'm looking at you crafting in DAO) but often time you do that at the expense of fun. The mechanics of the game should be invisible but RPG'ers seem to love having them constantly slapping you the face. I don't want to have to  eat breakfast and stay hydrated - next up your fast travel will be interrupted by bathroom breaks.

I don't want more complex "roll playing" I want a better "role playing" experience but so many people here are more about the former than latter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

-Semper- wrote...

and yet you've bought the game knowing that it will be this bad.

I can't discuss the game with BioWare and the community if I haven't played it.  I can't discuss DA2's features when discussing their possible inclusion in future games without having player them.

But more importantly, I had no idea DA2's combat would be this bad.

That said, I played ME2 knowing that I would dislike basically all of it, just so I would know what the features were and how they worked together.

[Sylvius the Mad]

lazuli wrote...

I am all for clarity in game mechanics and skill effects. Dragon Age 2 came a long way from Origins in that regard, but there's still more to be done.

Did it?  I know exactly what formula is used to determine how much damage a spell does in DAO.  I do not know that in DA2.

As a side note, I think the whole attribute system needs to be seriously rebalanced, especially in terms of item requirements and the health bar.

I'll agree there.  I'm using a mod that removes the secondary attribute requirements for equipment.  That makes it easier to build a character in keeping with RP without gimping him (you can still gimp him if you want - you just don't have to).

I suppose the health bar wouldn't need to be changed much if enemy damage could be balanced better.

Enemy damage and enemy HP levels are incredibly stupid in DA2.

As yet another side note, runes need to be overhauled.  The current system promots hoarding way too much.  Maybe I'm just playing the game wrong, but I felt afraid to use runes on the only playthrough I ever completed.  The system is too punitive and reeks of the 1990's.

I like systems that reward hoarding.  Ideally, the game would have other ways to discourage hoarding, like encumbrance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Harid wrote...

People overstate Baldur's Gate's complexity.

The only complexity was D&D, 2nd ed. The game itself was rather simple, and rather easy.

If you had access to DA:O's gambit, I'm sorry, tactics system, the game would arguably be easier than Dragon Age: Origins.

Yep, the 3E rules were basically a no brainers but then again it wasn't like DAO was a mind-bending task either. As you said the tactics system makes things easier. 95% of all fights could be auto-run in DAO or DA2 off nothing but tactics and you'd win.

People seem to confuse the Byzantine and arcane with the deep.

If you play BG like a game, where you're just choosing the optimal path to overcome the obstacles and have the story told at you, then yes, BG lacks a lot of complexity.

BG's complexity comes in the freedom to make RP decisions.  In some respects NWN did this as well, particuarly with regard to character design.

I don't particularly care how easy or deep it is to find an optimal build, or how difficult it is to get through encounters.  I care about how many different ways I can do that, because that allows a greater range of character designs for me to roleplay.

DA2's class-based role-enforcement in combat is, I think, a massive negative for the game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 mai 2011 - 11:48 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't particularly care how easy or deep it is to find an optimal build, or how difficult it is to get through encounters.  I care about how many different ways I can do that, because that allows a greater range of character designs for me to roleplay.

DA2's class-based role-enforcement in combat is, I think, a massive negative for the game.

It's just rock paper scissors. As you aim for higher difficulties, in the vanilla version of the game, you're left with very fixed classes and abilities to get through.

One good thing about DA2's combat, though, is the importance of non-damage abilities. DA:O strongly favoured direct damage mages in terms of powerful builds, but DA2 makes mage more oriented toward buffing, which I found a nice change of pace.

[Zeevico]

When I read ML's post the only thing I could think was: "my give a damn is broken." Don't sell me a sob story about how someone (who? EA?) wants you to create an action game and you're defending the party-based RPG from its demise. Sell me a good game. Correction: sell me a great game. I don't buy good games. I used to think Bioware games were great games by definition. I bought DA2 on release and even paid extra for a Day 1 DLC. I'm not doing that again. Even on its own metrics or aims, DA2 is not a good game. I say this as someone who quite liked ME2 (another 'streamlined' release).

ML writes that he's creating an RPG game that will capture Rockstar fans. If I wanted a Rockstar game I'd buy one.

As it is I'll wait to the reviews from those "fanatics" at RPG Codex to come out before I ever buy anything from this development team again.

Catch you at the bargain bin, Bioware.

[In Exile]

Zeevico wrote...
As it is I'll wait to the reviews from those "fanatics" at RPG Codex to come out before I ever buy anything from this development team again.

The ones that say that the ME series is a horror and DA:O is a mediocre RPG that fails to even catch a shadow of the old days? I mean, be my guests, but it doesn't seem like your tastes match up with theirs.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Their reviews are pretty good. It's the forums that have the baggage and hilarity.

Summary of Vault Dweller's Dragon Age: Origins review:

Dragon Age has flaws, and if you focus on them, you'll miss a pretty good role-playing game. It's a Bioware game, which means that it has a certain set of features that Bioware has developed into a trademark design over the last decade. However, Bioware has managed to improve and evolve that design significantly, keeping the strong story-focus, while loading in a wide range of player choices and paths, which makes it the best Bioware RPG and one of the best role-playing games in years despite the flaws.

[Daveros]

Sidney wrote...

I don't want more complex "roll playing" I want a better "role playing" experience but so many people here are more about the former than latter.

Just about my favourite quote ever; and I agree wholeheartedly.