327 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

For you. But again, it's all opinion. The fact is real time combat is something you don't enjoy. Doesn't make games less of an RPG purely for having it. Otherwise, you could claim just as easily that he RT w/ Pause type combat is less of an RPG than Turn Based. The positioning of characters and execution of skills in real time is not decided by the character, it's decided by the player, blah blah blah.

It's a pointless argument, what's important is the implementation and execution. All types of combat can be fun provided it's done well. I think we can at least agree that in Dragon Age 2, it was less than ideal.

[Cutlass Jack]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was excited when I first heard Obsidian was develping Dungeon Siege III, because I really liked the original Dungeon Siege.

But they appear to have turned it into an action game. That's no good.

I was happy to hear they were doing it...until I saw what they were doing to it. Then I cancelled my pre-order.

No creatable protaganist, no mule, not interested.

[Zeevico]

Obsidian directing DA3? Heavy risk.

It will never happen though. They're different studios and they belong to different companies. So I have no idea how or why OP thinks this thread deserves any serious discussion. If the thread is about how much better Obsidian is--well, may as well just title it as such. Having never played an Obsidian game outside of NWN2 I can't say that I'm able to make that comparison.

Modifié par Zeevico, 03 juin 2011 - 03:16 .

[Romantiq]

I wouldn't mind them developing DA3. Their game plots always intrigued me and I think that people pick on them too much for bugs. I still enjoyed KOTOR 2  a LOT no matter what anyone says. NWN was very decent for a sequel and mask of the betrayer was just superb for an expansion. New Vegas puts Fallout 3 to shame. I don't even want to touch Fallout 3 ever again. Opinion of course, but well justified

Modifié par Romantiq, 03 juin 2011 - 03:19 .

[Atakuma]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was excited when I first heard Obsidian was develping Dungeon Siege III, because I really liked the original Dungeon Siege.

But they appear to have turned it into an action game. That's no good.

I was happy to hear they were doing it...until I saw what they were doing to it. Then I cancelled my pre-order.

No creatable protaganist, no mule, not interested.

Yeah, some truely baffling design choices there. I want to like them, but they keep making it harder.

[Bejos_]

mrcrusty wrote...

The reason I disliked Dragon Age 2 combat was not because it was faster or more action-y, but because it was done with little thought. Amimations totally broke the pseudo-realistic feel of Origins combat and the enemy + encounter design was absolutely shocking ninja parachutes, dozens of trash mobs mixed with HP bloats, the attack speeds where different between you and enemies, it just reeked of fail for me. The exploding bodies too. Dagger stab = blood explosion? Cool story bro.

All this made for a less tactical game on normal difficulties (Witcher 2 on easy felt more tactical), but at higher difficulties, the implementation was less than ideal too. More enemy variation? Better AI? More abilities? Better encounter setup? No... more more waves more more enemies more more HP. Could've been handled much better. I think the Icewind Dale games are pretty good in how they handle a more Action-y Real Time with Pause Combat system.

<_<

What really impresses me about TW2 combat is the manner in which it varies the story experience, depending on which specialisation branch you choose.

On my first playthrough, I specialised in the sword branch and combat felt visceral and verdant.
On my second playthrough I specialised in magic, which makes the experience similar to an out-of-body one-- and not in a bad way. You're so badass that you feel like a monster with a mission; it gives the impression of a character with absolute determination.
I'm now doing a third playthrough, with a specialisation in alchemy. The game is incredibly creepy if you go the trap route: setting down 35 snares in a nekker cave is unnerving. I was constantly worried they'd jump out at me before I got to set the scene.

The entire atmosphere of TW2 changes depending on how you choose to do combat. That's a pretty amazing achievement.

Can the same be said for DA2? Absolutely not.

Addendum [to get this back OT]:
DA2 combat may be fun (obviously, this is subjective) but to claim that your fighter Hawke is fundamentally different than your mage Hawke is fundamentally different than your rogue Hawke is a stretch. That said, it's still fun combat, sometimes.
Obsidian and Bethesda both have a track record of truly uninspiring combat. I wouldn't want them going anywhere near the DA franchise. They'd ruin the little good that it still has going for it.

Modifié par Bejos_, 03 juin 2011 - 03:51 .

[Atakuma]

Bejos_ wrote...
Can the same be said for DA2? Absolutely not.

That's because it forces you to go down a single path by giving you only one point per level, not to mention the gameplay for both games is completely different, so they aren't really comparable.

[Gatt9]

mrcrusty wrote...

For you. But again, it's all opinion. The fact is real time combat is something you don't enjoy. Doesn't make games less of an RPG purely for having it. Otherwise, you could claim just as easily that he RT w/ Pause type combat is less of an RPG than Turn Based. The positioning of characters and execution of skills in real time is not decided by the character, it's decided by the player, blah blah blah.

It's a pointless argument, what's important is the implementation and execution. All types of combat can be fun provided it's done well. I think we can at least agree that in Dragon Age 2, it was less than ideal.

You're right of course.

That said,  RT systems have severe problems.  There's very little strategy and tactics in them,  you can't execute carefully laid plans because someone's either...

-Going to sit there and do nothing while getting killed
-Going to run off after some random enemy,  and get himself killed,  which usually activates a small army that will then kill the rest of your units because it suddenly knows exactly where you are.
-Going to attack the wrong target,  or switch targets when you're not looking.
-Take the 20 minute scenic route to the location you just tried to move them to that's 2 inches away from them.

RT suffers from a huge number of issues that impede strategy and tactics.  Given,  you could make the arguement that this is reasonably realistic,  and you'd be right.  Because you're going to have some idiot that does something stupid in any real situation.

That's why I'm actually partial to TB systems myself.  Not that I hate RT,  I love some RTS's (Starcraft,  Total War,  and others).

They're both fun,  but one is more strategy intensive and the other more reaction intensive.  Trick is,  choosing the right option for the type of game you're making.  It has to be chose for a reason that meshes with your type of game,  not because it's "The cool thing".

X-com Apocalypse is a great example of what I mean.  RT was implemented just because "Real Time is cool,  all games should be RT",  and it sucked horribly because RT X-com completely killed the suspense of hunting aliens and having them suddenly pop out at you and then disappear.

Total War is a good example of the opposite,  RT significantly enhances the experience of commanding a chaotic battle where inattention or poor planning can wipe out your army.

It has to be chose to compliment your game,  not just because "All games must be RT".

[Nepenthe87]

simfamSP wrote...

-Semper- wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Closer to 15-18. It had about as much dev time as Dragon Age 2.

Chris Avellone said...

No, actually. It was like a few months after the release
of the last Fallout 3 DLC that Bethesda wanted to start up the next
installment in the series. They approached us after that.

zeta - august 2009, new vegas - october 2010.

now subtract the negotiation period with bethesda and frozen state (quality assurance) and you've got your dev time

I'm sure they must have been thinking on the story + other design materials early 2008.

How could Obsidian have been thinking of a story and other design options in 2008 a year before they were contacted by Bethsoft?

If you are saying that besthsoft was working out the story then that's not correct, either. It was either chris Avellone or J E sawyer said they were given free reign on new vegas in terms of story/design choice and that bethsoft "left to them do mostly what they wanted". It's obvious bethsoft did not have a story laid out for them, nor told them what to do with the game, since they were even able to change skills and core mechanics (hardcore mode).

Modifié par Nepenthe87, 03 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[Bejos_]

Atakuma wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...
Can the same be said for DA2? Absolutely not.

That's because it forces you to go down a single path by giving you only one point per level, not to mention the gameplay for both games is completely different, so they aren't really comparable.

The games seem (to me) to be very comparable in a lot of areas, but their overall goals are quite different. I maintain that after you've played one DA2 class you've basically played them all. I didn't get that impression with TW2.

But this isn't a TW2 thread.

Obsidian does World well. A collaboration on DA3 with Bioware would be good - I can see the literary and gameplay merits of DA2 mixing well with the cohesion that Obsidian brings to its games. DA2 could have been a good game with more focus. Obsidian would provide this.
I just don't see it happening. They have completely different approaches to game design.

Modifié par Bejos_, 03 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Gatt9 wrote...
snip

I actually did say my prefered combat system for RPGs was a hex or grid based TB system ala FFT.

What's you're describing is a problem with party based RT combat. Simply put, the AI isn't good enough. Which I'd agree with. Solo RT combat is much easier to add strategy and tactics to if you adapt elements of positioning, resource management and so forth. The key is to emphasise the use of a player's tactical and reaction skills, then layer RPG mechanics on top that support such gameplay. Whether this means that stats affect your accuracy, speed, etc or whether you design encounters to support certain strategies and builds over others, etc.

Make the combat player (not character) centric, then use the character system and other RPG elements to heavily modify their ability to succeed.

New Vegas (after mods) and Witcher 2 are good examples of this.

Ideally, that's how you handle a combat system for an Action RPG, or freeform attack RT combat system.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 03 juin 2011 - 04:15 .

[AlanC9]

mrcrusty wrote...

For you. But again, it's all opinion. The fact is real time combat is something you don't enjoy. Doesn't make games less of an RPG purely for having it. Otherwise, you could claim just as easily that he RT w/ Pause type combat is less of an RPG than Turn Based. The positioning of characters and execution of skills in real time is not decided by the character, it's decided by the player, blah blah blah.

You seem to be arguing here against positions Sylvius hasn't taken.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

That said,  RT systems have severe problems.  There's very little strategy and tactics in them,  you can't execute carefully laid plans because ..

I wouldn't equate "tactics" with "executing carefully laid plans." Managing the chaos of battle is part of tactics too. (I just find this turn of phrase a little irritating since I come from a wargaming background, and turn-based tactical games are a nightmare that I've been trying to wake up from since 1979 or so.)

Oddly enough, original D&D had a fairly sophisticated system to keep combat a bit chaotic. Which, of course, the Gold Box games didn't even try to implement, and Bio only handled in a half-assed way with the IE.

[Dreadstruck]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
VATS.

I found New Vegas unplayable until I installed a mod that gave me faster Action Point regeneration.

I don't understand, VATS in F3 was pretty much a "I win" button and now that they've balanced it you're gonna blast off the whole game because of it?
Also, I don't see what was so tactical about it.
You stop the realtime events sure. But that's about it. You shoot 'em while they can't shoot you most of the times.

What about the improved SPECIAL system that actually matters unlike F3? Damage Threshold or numerous quest choices and outcomes?

But whatever floats your boat then. Our definition of fun may vary.

i tried that once. maxed agility, drugs, nerves of steel, math wrath,
action boy, additional skills to lower enemie's dmg treshhold and grim
reaper are more enough to keep my ap bar sky high without a single mod.
dunno what you are doing wrong...

Funny, I got pretty much the same setup yet without the enemy threshhold perk and it still felt quote overpowered.

Modifié par Avalla'ch, 03 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[CroGamer002]

jack_f wrote...

It's a no-brainer really. 

Obsidian has a long history of inclining Bioware franchises, or polishing rough diamonds if you will:

Baldur's Gate -> Baldur's Gate 2
KOTOR -> KOTOR 2
NWN -> NWN2 (esp Mask of The Betrayer)
Mass Effect - > Alpha Protocol (sorta)

Obsidian is the only hope for DA3. Hell, it even worked for FO3.

KOTOR 2 is far shorter then KOTOR because it was rushed and most of content cut. Also ending sucked.

Alpha Protocol better then Mass Effect? WHAT?!
Look, I love AP, but that game bugged as hell, lot of technical difficulties, unpolished, unbalanced game mechanic and lack of character customizations.

And Fallout New Vegas?
That game is exactly the same as Fallout 3 with only few additions.

Game sold as much as FO3, didn't get many or if any GOTY awards and got lesser scores by both critics and fans then FO3.





SO yeah, DA3 for Obsidian is NOT good idea.

[Dreadstruck]

Mesina2 wrote...
Game sold as much as FO3, didn't get many or if any GOTY awards and got lesser scores by both critics and fans then FO3.

I respectfully disagree good ser. NV didn't get all the pre-relase hype like F3 did but was still widely accepted by a lot of fans, mostly the old ones from Fallout 1 and 2. That doesn't seem like a fail to me,

[Anathemic]

Mesina2 wrote...

jack_f wrote...

It's a no-brainer really. 

Obsidian has a long history of inclining Bioware franchises, or polishing rough diamonds if you will:

Baldur's Gate -> Baldur's Gate 2
KOTOR -> KOTOR 2
NWN -> NWN2 (esp Mask of The Betrayer)
Mass Effect - > Alpha Protocol (sorta)

Obsidian is the only hope for DA3. Hell, it even worked for FO3.

KOTOR 2 is far shorter then KOTOR because it was rushed and most of content cut. Also ending sucked.

Alpha Protocol better then Mass Effect? WHAT?!
Look, I love AP, but that game bugged as hell, lot of technical difficulties, unpolished, unbalanced game mechanic and lack of character customizations.

And Fallout New Vegas?
That game is exactly the same as Fallout 3 with only few additions.

Game sold as much as FO3, didn't get many or if any GOTY awards and got lesser scores by both critics and fans then FO3.

SO yeah, DA3 for Obsidian is NOT good idea.

What does GOTY have to do with anything? GOTY is more a popularity contest than a quality award.

[CroGamer002]

Avalla'ch wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
Game sold as much as FO3, didn't get many or if any GOTY awards and got lesser scores by both critics and fans then FO3.

I respectfully disagree good ser. NV didn't get all the pre-relase hype like F3 did but was still widely accepted by a lot of fans, mostly the old ones from Fallout 1 and 2. That doesn't seem like a fail to me,

I never said it was fail just is not really that big success to mention as "polished rough diamond".
Plus game wasn't even much more polished than FO3.

Anathemic wrote...

What does GOTY have to do with anything? GOTY is more a popularity contest than a quality award.

It is both.

I don't remember Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty Black Ops getting many GOTY rewards despite huge popularity( while CoD 1 and 4 did get many).

[Sylvius the Mad]

mrcrusty wrote...

For you. But again, it's all opinion. The fact is real time combat is something you don't enjoy. Doesn't make games less of an RPG purely for having it.

Sure it does.  It forces player skill to determine in-game outcomes.

Otherwise, you could claim just as easily that he RT w/ Pause type combat is less of an RPG than Turn Based. The positioning of characters and execution of skills in real time is not decided by the character, it's decided by the player, blah blah blah.

The pause eliminates that problem, though.  In fact, what real-time with pause does is give action players a real-time option, while giving RPG players a chance to issue all orders while paused, thus emulating the imporant part of turn-based combat, that is being purely stat-driven.

The only thing that isn't stat-driven is the decision-making, but that's true in turn-based games, as well.

It's a pointless argument, what's important is the implementation and execution. All types of combat can be fun provided it's done well. I think we can at least agree that in Dragon Age 2, it was less than ideal.

We can certainly agree with that.

[-Semper-]

Nepenthe87 wrote...

How could Obsidian have been thinking of a story and other design options in 2008 a year before they were contacted by Bethsoft?

because once upon a time black isle developed the real deal (fallout 3 aka van buren) which was later canceled. they kept the design documents as intellectual property and used them as inspiration for new vegas. if you browse through them you will notice lots of similarities

anyways the 18month development time bio've gotten is more than enough for such a big team to drop an aaa title. their whole schedule was a mess. add all the bad design decisions they made and you know why da2 is... a dissappointment.

Modifié par -Semper-, 03 juin 2011 - 08:25 .

[FiachSidhe]

Anathemic wrote...

What does GOTY have to do with anything? GOTY is more a popularity contest than a quality award.

When you dislike the game, awards mean nothing.

[Vogga]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

jack_f wrote...

It's a no-brainer really. 

Obsidian has a long history of inclining Bioware franchises, or polishing rough diamonds if you will:

Baldur's Gate -> Baldur's Gate 2
KOTOR -> KOTOR 2
NWN -> NWN2 (esp Mask of The Betrayer)
Mass Effect - > Alpha Protocol (sorta)

Obsidian is the only hope for DA3. Hell, it even worked for FO3.

Yep a complete no-brainer. Because we want DA3 to have even more bugs and with even more things dropped because they ran out of time.

I for one can't wait to see what random LI I find in my bed because they only had time to finish one romance.

I suppose this right here is what seperates BioWare fans from other RPG players

Also, having more dropped content than in Dragon Age 2 =/= having less content.

Modifié par Vogga, 03 juin 2011 - 08:59 .

[Vogga]

Mesina2 wrote...

jack_f wrote...

It's a no-brainer really. 

Obsidian has a long history of inclining Bioware franchises, or polishing rough diamonds if you will:

Baldur's Gate -> Baldur's Gate 2
KOTOR -> KOTOR 2
NWN -> NWN2 (esp Mask of The Betrayer)
Mass Effect - > Alpha Protocol (sorta)

Obsidian is the only hope for DA3. Hell, it even worked for FO3.

KOTOR 2 is far shorter then KOTOR because it was rushed and most of content cut. Also ending sucked.

Alpha Protocol better then Mass Effect? WHAT?!
Look, I love AP, but that game bugged as hell, lot of technical difficulties, unpolished, unbalanced game mechanic and lack of character customizations.

And Fallout New Vegas?
That game is exactly the same as Fallout 3 with only few additions.

Game sold as much as FO3, didn't get many or if any GOTY awards and got lesser scores by both critics and fans then FO3.





SO yeah, DA3 for Obsidian is NOT good idea.

 

Kotor II is not shorter than the first one. I don't think you've even played the game.

For people that can appreciate solid sequels, Obsidian is a good idea. I would prefer having both companies work on future Dragon Age titles, but I don't think think that'll ever happen as BioWare is keen on keeping their original IP's close -- and letting them fall to ruin from within -- before handing them out to other companies.

Modifié par Vogga, 03 juin 2011 - 09:11 .

[Raygereio]

Besides, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can say New Vegas is the same as FO3 with a straight face.
One of those two had writing. The other had something that can only be described as a crime against reason.

Modifié par Raygereio, 03 juin 2011 - 09:24 .