273 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Baldur's Gate is phase or round based, but the combat is in real time. Simple real time/turn based test: Can more than one character move and/or attack on the screen at the same time? Yes/no?

But you're painting the brush far too broad, Sidney.

As xkg mentions, you could fit the majority of JRPGs on the market to that definition.

[Sidney]

xkg wrote...
"Pause n' Go real time combat" - sorry but Baldur's Gate has D&D mechanics so it is turn based. Proof - You can turn on "pause at the beginning of player turn".

I understand that behind the scenes the real time was an attempt tp mask for a turn based system but even in the implementation it wasn't since actions took place simultaneously. You can talk about a "turn" but you do not have the UGO-IGO sctrutcure of actual turn-based combat even if you pause at the start of each turn. Frankly KoTOR did a better job of "unmasking" the turn based nature with the action queue (something I miss BTW).

As for "plenty of things" being the sucessor then what the hell did make BG2 what it was? I mean by your logic DAO isn't the spiritual successor either unless you are just going to make (and I'm guessing this is your "logic" some subjective  qualitative judgement.

[Sidney]

mrcrusty wrote...

Baldur's Gate is phase or round based, but the combat is in real time. Simple real time/turn based test: Can more than one character move and/or attack on the screen at the same time? Yes/no?

But you're painting the brush far too broad, Sidney.

As xkg mentions, you could fit the majority of JRPGs on the market to that definition.

As I ask again, what does it mean to be a spiritual sucessor? What makes it "in the spirit" of BG2? I mean ME1 for all the goodness it had was not in the spirit of BG2...why not? Was JE in the spirit of BG2. Tell what doesn't make the latter proper spiritual sucessors then.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

http://social.biowar...69134/8#7775603

mrcrusty wrote...

As for the spiritual successor stuff, I don't really care all that much. It's a buzzword used for hype.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 07 juillet 2011 - 02:38 .

[xkg]

This is still Turn Based - it is mechanics taken from strategy games and is called "Turn based with simultaneous execution"

Modifié par xkg, 07 juillet 2011 - 03:44 .

[xkg]

And about that "spiritual" thing - for me it is something that you can feel but you can't describe it rationally. Just like in case of other things with the "spiritual" label on it.

You just feel it when you play the game. I didn't, when i was playing DA2 but to be honest neither did i while playing DAO.

[thedistortedchild]

Sidney wrote...

thedistortedchild wrote...

1. Yes I agree that that existed in da2
2. I'm not sure what you mean by this.
3.Not on console until after the patch ( no auto attak made it nigh impossible to be strategic)
4. I disagree but this is a ymmv
5. not nearly as much nor was it as interesting as bg or dao (ymmv on that last bit as well)

2. It isn't a Oblivion type one person game. You have a party.
3. The failure to have the auto-attack was an mistake. They always claimed for all versions that should have been there. Quality control was not part of the "plan" for DA2.
4. I'm not sure how you can disagree. They clearly do not have the IWD kill everything from point A to point B type of game. There's a ton of dialog you've got all sorts of plot lines going. If anything the problem is too much breadth of story and not enough depth.
5. I'm not even sure the as much is true  but there is clearly NPC interaction and how much you liked it is just an opinion.

As I said, ymmv.
4. I felt the story was disjointed and not  the driving force for the game.
5.  There is companion interaction. I'm not debating it's existence but it's value.
IMHO it has similarities to BG in that is in the same genre (and that's even pushing it a little) but it is not of the same spirit as baldurs gate.

[Travie]

I started a solo monk game of BG with the big world mod to play through the whole series.

So. Darn. Fun.

Although its hard not having my main-bro minsc in the party.

[adlocutio]

In Exile wrote...

adlocutio wrote...
Again, I'm not saying it's not specious at best, but if you accept it it solves the problem of no motivation.

But I don't. Let's say I believe the risk is worth it (Flemeth is insane, Morrigain is an apostate and cannot be trusted). I do not believe those treaties have value, and that allies can be gathered from war-torn Ferelden. I honestly believe (and am happy to risk my life) for the small sliver of a chance I can make it to Orlais.

Then what? How does the game address that? It never does. Just like DA2 never adresses a Hawke who might want to save mages at every turn.

If you accept fleeing to Orlais/escaping Ferelden as impossible, that you can't survive on your own long enough to get there, which the story either implies or states (I can't say with certainty which), then you're forced logically to undertake survival through gathering what allies you can.

I'm not saying you should accept that, I'm saying the game attempted to address the flaw you pointed out.  Like I said at the beginning of my wall 'o' text, I didn't see you acknowledge this.  I didn't say you should accept it.

[adlocutio]

In Exile wrote...
That is a plot-hole of such epic failure it's almost comical. Loghain has no reason to believe you are alive. He has no reason to know what you look like.

Loghain doesn't seek to kill you personally.  He leaves soldiers at Lothering to catch any Wardens or soldiers from Cailen's army who might have escaped Ostagar.  But once people see you, word gets back to Loghain two Wardens still live.  Then he sends the Crows.  So you can't not deal with Loghain.

No, it isn't. It's excellent motivation to get the hell out of dodge and find more Grey Wardens, instead of getting involed in a Civil War where the other side is already making plans to kill you.

  Like I said in the other post, you have to accept that you can't make it on your own for this to work.  And that no one is willing to help you get to Orlais.

But I never said there was no motivation. I said repeatedly that you were railroaded into a motivation. Hawke has a motivation : family (and if you make the once choice that removes that) the friends that stay in Kirkwall, & then being Champion. The issue is how you're railroaded into it.

  You asked what the motivation was for a human noble who was kidnapped, etc.

No. You can't roleplay a sarcastic tone, because your sarcasm is never acknowledged. If I play a character who YELLS EVERYTHING AND POUNDS HIS CHEST (especially during the romances!) every time she speaks. Or a character who spits on everyone's face and then attempts to lick their fingers.

I didn't say all personalities were possible, nor that all tones were possible.  Just that you can roleplay where ambiguities exist.  Like I said, if the game doesn't contradict you, even if it's not responding to your alternative roleplay exactly as you would expect, it's still valid.

You have one tone: the tone the game designers have used to write the dialogue option int he first place.

I would put it to you that you can't even know the tone the designers intended (before the advent of the tone-wheel) in all cases without metagame knowledge.  Your choice of dialogue is a roleplay choice, and you determine tone before knowing (and possibly without regard for) how others respond to it, from limited but definitely multiple possibilities.

Yes, they are. Because they exhaust the responses. If you and I both said the same line to the same person in the same context (but with a different interplay of statements because we are different personalities), the mere fact it was the two of us saying it would produce non-identical responses.

Sure, there would be subtle (or perhaps even not so subtle) differences, but you can roleplay through that. There's really only a limited number of possible responses to any character dialogue in a roleplaying game. Positive, negative, neutral, unsure.  Tell me if I've missed anything.

It is impossible for the game to accomodate more than 1 (or at best 2) tones for any dialogue option, irespective of how vague you try to make the response.

Bolded means you agree with me.  Not sure if that's what you intended.

[Morroian]

xkg wrote...

You just feel it when you play the game. I didn't, when i was playing DA2 but to be honest neither did i while playing DAO.

Something I can agree with you on. DAO does not feel like BG at all to me.

[xkg]

Morroian wrote...

xkg wrote...

You just feel it when you play the game. I didn't, when i was playing DA2 but to be honest neither did i while playing DAO.

Something I can agree with you on. DAO does not feel like BG at all to me.

Yep, thats good. At least we can finally agree on something .

[adlocutio]

Addendum @ InExile, then I swear to god this is my last off topic post:

I remembered that the reason you have to have Morrigan is because the Darkspawn are breaching in the south, heading north, and are thus all around you. But the horde is between Ostagar and Lothering, so in order to get to the road to Orlais you have to pass through/around the horde, and only Morrigan can get you there. And she's not coming, apparantly, unless you commit to fighting the blight in Ferelden. That's the explanation, anyways.

Also re:roleplaying through tonal ambiguity in dialogue: An example of what I mean exactly might be in order, and I refer you to start with the situation Sylvius pointed out in this thread: http://social.biowar...1/index/7774236

So he's pointing out the inaccurate paraphrase, but the result is that he's unable to roleplay a character who has no problem with slavery; the accept paraphrase is "yes" but the response is "get out of my sight!". So, if the response was "yes" just like the paraphrase(or OK, fine or whatever), AND if there were no voice actor delivering the line, then ambiguity allows for both possible responses, and thus both types of characters, to be equally valid.

You can interpret the character- again without a voiced PC- as meaning "fine" as in "Fine, but you better get out of my sight" or as "fine, sure, no problem." Now, as I said, the voice actor muddles this if not completely then to a very large degree, so this is the most convincing argument, imho, against a voiced PC.

Don't think I mean every line works that way, certainly that isn't the case. But I see these opportunities over and over again.

But even so, Bioware has gone out of its way to limit roleplaying possibilities when it wasn't necessary. If they can't imagine a PC who endorses slavery, or for some reason refuse to support it, then that is a serious failure from a maker of an RPG, especially considering their mantra has been "hard choices."

[In Exile]

Tirfan wrote...

In Exile: I think adlocutio was trying to make a point that you can RP the character as at least to some extent sarcastic because, while the npc:s don't react to the tone that can be explained in a few different ways at least, including that the npc:s aren't used to sarcasm and don't spot it, or the PC being very bad at conveying the fact that he is sarcastic. It is technically feasible, it just doesn't work for me at least.

What if your PC is misunderstood, i.e. says something jokingly and the other character takes offence? The game doesn't let you correct misunderstandings; that's the biggest sign the tone is fixed.

adlocutio wrote...
If you accept fleeing to
Orlais/escaping Ferelden as impossible, that you can't survive on
your own long enough to get there, which the story either implies or
states (I can't say with certainty which), then you're forced logically
to undertake survival through gathering what allies you can.

I'm
not saying you should accept that, I'm saying the game attempted
to address the flaw you pointed out.  Like I said at the beginning of
my wall 'o' text, I didn't see you acknowledge this.  I didn't say you
should accept it.

The game didn't provide any justification for it. All that it said was that the darkspawn might hunt you, and that Flemeth had a workaround. But that's not specific to Orlais. The game never said (or implied) the Darkspawn will hunt you every but Ferelden. It was merely that the blight will nip at your heels. But the blight can nip at my heels just as well when I get allies that aren't useless on a mission that isn't pure suicide.

That's the real problem with the game. It never addresses just how absurd the actual quest in DA:O is (except for Sten pointing it out once). And you can't fight it, or get talked out of alternatives with anything other than I <3Ferelden. At one point Alistair says he won't abandon Ferelden... but that just makes my Warden feel like "Well, why the hell should I care that you're suicidal?"

adlocutio wrote...
 Loghain doesn't seek to kill you
personally.  He leaves soldiers at Lothering to catch any Wardens or
soldiers from Cailen's army who might have escaped Ostagar.  But
once people see you, word gets back to Loghain two Wardens still live. 
Then he sends the Crows.  So you can't not deal with Loghain.

The soldiers know what you look like. Unless they have magic powers (they do - it's called poor writing) they can't know what you look like. Your portrait was never taken. Loghain only say you twice. He never saw Alistair. He never saw any of the other Gray Wardens.

If Loghain actually finds an artist on-hand to create your likeness specifically on the off-chance you're alive, that's nonsence. Even if he did, actually, there's another problem:

You can actually skip the soldiers entirely. Loghain still has telepathic powers and knows you specifically are alive.

Even beyond that, you certainly can deal with Loghain. You just killed his asssasins (because you were forced to walk into the stupidest trap of all time at that). The crows can keep sending ineffectual assasins. You go to Orlais. You're sorrounded by Grey Wardens and Orlesian Chevaliers. Then, you agree to sell out Ferelden to Orlais for more troops. An occupation will be just the thing to end the civil war! All it comes back to is not I <3 Ferelden.

adlocutio wrote...
 Like I said in the other post, you have to
accept that you can't make it on your own for this to work.  And
that no one is willing to help you get to Orlais.

You don't have to accept anything, because the game never proves it. And no one helps you get to Orzammar, or the Brecilian Forest, or the Tower of Mages, or Redcliffe, or Haven (and that could even require backtracking through darkspawn) or that village you find Shale (and there you do backtrack through darkspawn!).

You survive all of that (even an expedition alone with 4 people in the deep roads!) and somehow walking to Orlais is too dangerous (or taking a ship to Gwaren like Hawke did?).

  You asked what the motivation was for a human noble who was kidnapped,
etc.

And you haven't given one. Beyond I <3 Ferelden.

I didn't say all personalities were possible, nor that all
tones were possible.  Just that you can roleplay where
ambiguities exist.  Like I said, if the game doesn't contradict you,
even if it's not responding to your alternative roleplay exactly
as you would expect, it's still valid.

The game actively contracits me.

Me: Alstair is a dumb-face (thinking it was a joke).
Alistair: Hurt my feelings! Approval -5
Me: .... Where is the apology button?

Although the best line is the one that made Morrigain seem mentally challenged.

Morrigain: What's with all the touching?
Me: Did all the bad touching upset you (reading it as: Oh noes! Morrigain has to shake hands! The horror!)
Her: That kind of touching I can understand.
Me... wtf!? Did she get dropped on the head?

I would put it to you that you can't even know the tone the
designers intended (before the advent of the tone-wheel) in all cases
without metagame knowledge.  Your choice of dialogue is a roleplay
choice, and you determine tone before knowing (and possibly
without regard for) how others respond to it, from limited but
definitely multiple possibilities.

No. You have the behavioural and written reaction of the subsequent NPC. That is causally dependent on your statement (and behaviour) and inflection and intonation (as well as non-verbal behaviour and expression) all influence how something is said. You can infer part of how something was said based on the reaction to it alone.

Sure, there would be subtle (or perhaps even not so subtle) differences,
but you can roleplay through that. There's really only a limited number
of possible responses to any character dialogue in a roleplaying game.
Positive, negative, neutral, unsure.  Tell me if I've missed anything.

Not really. I just gave you examples. You got the tones right perfectly.

Bolded means you agree with me.  Not sure if that's what you
intended.

You agree that it's impossible to add any tone and the tone is entirely pre-defined, making roleplay a matter of guiding a character outside of your control through pre-determined steps? If so, yeah, we're apparently on the same page.

[In Exile]

adlocutio wrote...
I remembered that the reason you have to have Morrigan is because the Darkspawn are breaching in the south, heading north, and are thus all around you. But the horde is between Ostagar and Lothering, so in order to get to the road to Orlais you have to pass through/around the horde, and only Morrigan can get you there. And she's not coming, apparantly, unless you commit to fighting the blight in Ferelden. That's the explanation, anyways.

You can head to Denerim and take a ship. Or go through Orzammar. Look at the map:

Also re:roleplaying through tonal ambiguity in dialogue: An example of what I mean exactly might be in order, and I refer you to start with the situation Sylvius pointed out in this thread: http://social.biowar...1/index/7774236

Sylvius and I have had epic 20+ page debates on this topic. Suffice it to say that we've already out issues like that enough times I didn't even have the energy to respond in the thread.

So he's pointing out the inaccurate paraphrase, but the result is that he's unable to roleplay a character who has no problem with slavery; the accept paraphrase is "yes" but the response is "get out of my sight!". So, if the response was "yes" just like the paraphrase(or OK, fine or whatever), AND if there were no voice actor delivering the line, then ambiguity allows for both possible responses, and thus both types of characters, to be equally valid.

No. The response would always have been delivered as "get out of my sight!" based on both how the NPCs (e.g. Fenris) would react to it, and how the character himself would respond to it. In fact, without the paraphrase, the resposne would have been "Get out of my sight!"

What the paraphrase does (for Bioware) is give a cue to the content of the message (and now + the tone it was intended) so that the player nows more about how a line will be delivered.

You can interpret the character- again without a voiced PC- as meaning "fine" as in "Fine, but you better get out of my sight" or as "fine, sure, no problem." Now, as I said, the voice actor muddles this if not completely then to a very large degree, so this is the most convincing argument, imho, against a voiced PC.

No, you can't. That is, unless you think your character has some kind of severe mentral truama.

C1: Tell me everything or die!
C2: [Tells everything!]
C1: Please leave. :happy:

But even so, Bioware has gone out of its way to limit roleplaying possibilities when it wasn't necessary. If they can't imagine a PC who endorses slavery, or for some reason refuse to support it, then that is a serious failure from a maker of an RPG, especially considering their mantra has been "hard choices."

Bioware hasn't. Bioware always wrote dialogue and characters like this. Just look at some of the lines in the DA:O Origin Stories. You can even infer who each character (in the minds of the writers) was just from the dialogue options.

The fact that players think they can invent multiple tones does not mean Bioware ever designed their games to work for that.

[adlocutio]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
What if your PC is misunderstood, i.e. says something jokingly and the other character takes offence? The game doesn't let you correct misunderstandings; that's the biggest sign the tone is fixed.
[/quote]This is a good point, but you can still imagine the situation such as your character wasn't given a chance to correct. I don't suggest it works hypothetically in every conceivable situation. But that doesn't mean it never works.

[quote]
The game didn't provide any justification for it. All that it said was that the darkspawn might hunt you, and that Flemeth had a workaround. But that's not specific to Orlais. The game never said (or implied) the Darkspawn will hunt you every but Ferelden. It was merely that the blight will nip at your heels. But the blight can nip at my heels just as well when I get allies that aren't useless on a mission that isn't pure suicide. [/quote] If it didn't say or imply that you couldn't make it on your own, then I must have roleplayed it into existence because I remember dealing with the specific issue of running away or going for reinforcements.  If it didn't say it, it should have.  Because the only way the story works is if you can't run away or go to Orlais for reinforcements.



[quote]That's the real problem with the game. It never addresses just how absurd the actual quest in DA:O is (except for Sten pointing it out once). [/quote]Interesting. How? What were possible responses?


[quote]And you can't fight it, or get talked out of alternatives with anything other than I <3Ferelden. [/quote]Yes, this was a problem.



[quote]The soldiers know what you look like. Unless they have magic powers (they do - it's called poor writing) they can't know what you look like. Your portrait was never taken. Loghain only say you twice. He never saw Alistair. He never saw any of the other Gray Wardens. [/quote]Why couldn't the soldiers have learned from someone in Lothering who you were and what you look like? It wouldn't take long for people to figure out that you at least came from the army at Ostagar.



[quote]You can actually skip the soldiers entirely. Loghain still has telepathic powers and knows you specifically are alive.[/quote]Again, someone in Lothering ratted you out?



[quote]The crows can keep sending ineffectual assasins. You go to Orlais. You're sorrounded by Grey Wardens and Orlesian Chevaliers.  [/quote]But how would you fare against those assassins  if you decided to abandon Ferelden and head to Orlais and all your companions abandoned you as a result?  If you take it as given that you couldn't survive the trip on your own, then you stay and fight.
 
It was my understanding that your companions were only helping you because you were trying to save Ferelden.  Now I'm not saying that makes sense, especially with Morrigan.  And I'm not saying the game ever explicitly proved this was the case, other than the circumstances under which the companions actually will abandon you.

[quote]
You survive all of that (even an expedition alone with 4 people in the deep roads!) and somehow walking to Orlais is too dangerous (or taking a ship to Gwaren like Hawke did?). [/quote] The supposition is that your companions abandon you and you don't survive on your own. Like I've said, it may not be compelling. I'm saying it's an attempt to deal with it. 

If this was never expicitly stated in game, then it was implied by a series of circumstances like the Horde and darkspawn all around you, the ability of Darkspawn to track you and your attraction to them, your need of Morrigan to guide you, that guidance being dependant on your fighting the blight in Ferelden.  

The supposition works out of Flemeth's hut-if you can't survive getting away from her hut on your own, then you have no choice.  It just seems weaker and weaker as you go.  Surely, as a group, you could have made it from Lothering to Orlais? I agree.  But Alistair would insist on going to Arl Eamon and probably wouldn't abandon Ferelden, so he's out.

Morrigan's character seems to suggest she'd be ok with going to Orlais for reinforcements, but there might also be some in-character reason why she wouldn't: Like there was some time limit for performing the ritual? Maybe Flemeth needed Ferelden for something. Doesn't really matter. 


[quote]And you haven't given one. Beyond I <3 Ferelden.[/quote]
If you can't get away from Flemeth's hut without dying, then your motivation for committing to fighting the blight in Ferelden is survival.  Because you need Morrigan to survive. At least, that's what the game would have you believe.





[quote]The game actively contracits me. [/quote]
Not always. In fact the game has responses which are the same regardless of whether you pick either one or the other option. Others could conceivably be included, or variations in tone.



[quote]No. You have the behavioural and written reaction of the subsequent NPC. That is causally dependent on your statement (and behaviour) and inflection and intonation (as well as non-verbal behaviour and expression) all influence how something is said. You can infer part of how something was said based on the reaction to it alone. [/quote]But behaviour and written reaction (I wouldn't say NPC's have much in the way of nonverbal behaviour, though that is improving) do not necessarily boil down to responding to one possible tone in every situation.  Furthermore, you must choose your response, and therefore your tone (in Origins), before the NPC responds.  So you can't use the response as a determination of tone unless you already know how they'll respond through metagame knowledge. 

[quote]Not really. I just gave you examples. You got the tones right perfectly. [/quote]If I got the responses right, then why would you not consider that there might be one positive response for several different initial tones? Or negative or whatever.  

I wouldn't venture to try to determine how much meaning is conveyed through tone vs. through the literal words, even less to guess how an NPC's response might subtly change in reaction to tonal differences, but you have to admit that if a response is less a reaction to tone and more a reaction to the literal words, then you can accept that sarcasm was ignored (purposefully or not) or not understood or not delivered well, or whatever.



[quote]You agree that it's impossible to add any tone and the tone is entirely pre-defined, making roleplay a matter of guiding a character outside of your control through pre-determined steps? If so, yeah, we're apparently on the same page. [/quote]Hehe, but you know I don't.  You said:



[quote]It is impossible for the game to accomodate more than 1 (or at best 2) tones for any dialogue option, irespective of how vague you try to make the response. [/quote]  If 2 tones are possible for a dialogue option, then you can roleplay through that ambiguity.  It doesn't really matter whether the 2 possible tones were intended or whether I invented it, so long as the response doesn't contradict me.



[quote]You can head to Denerim and take a ship. Or go through Orzammar. Look at the map: [/quote]The game wants you to believe you can't get there without Morrigan's help, and that she won't help you escape.



[quote]No. The response would always have been delivered as "get out of my sight!" based on both how the NPCs (e.g. Fenris) would react to it, and how the character himself would respond to it. In fact, without the paraphrase, the resposne would have been "Get out of my sight!" [/quote]  Well, obviously, in this case the response would need to be written to accommodate ambiguity, or there would need to be a different response for a character who pragmatically deals with slavers.  There's no reason not to support this.  If it's a bad example of my premise it's because I don't recall playing this scene and chose badly.



[quote]No, you can't. That is, unless you think your character has some kind of severe mentral truama. [/quote]If the response is appropriate, then I can.  If not, then it's contradicted, and I can't.  Like I said, the problem here was my example.



[quote]You can even infer who each character (in the minds of the writers) was just from the dialogue options.[/quote]That's an unusual claim considering there are multiple characterizations possible.  If you're saying you can pick which one they would have chosen for them, that's not really important as long as the other options exist.



[quote]The fact that players think they can invent multiple tones does not mean Bioware ever designed their games to work for that[/quote]Design or intent is irrelevant.  If it works it doesn't matter whether it was intentional. I believe it does work in many circumstances. But obviously it requires a willingness to not have one's intent specifically recognized.

  I know Sylvius has several examples of quirks within games which constitute game features, whether they were intended that way or not.  The example which comes to mind is when the family of a PC doesn't match the PC's hair, eye, or skin color - that is a feature which allows the player to roleplay an adopted PC.  He argued that when the DA2 CC added the ability to match family members to the PC (to some degree) it also represented the loss of the feature for them not to look like them. So he asked for a toggle to turn the matching off. 

Sorry for the off-topic post, which I promised wasn't forthcoming.  But there wasn't much discussion going on anyway.

Modifié par adlocutio, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:09 .

[sympathy4saren]

Anathemic wrote...

EA bought out BioWare, that's what happened.

This.

[Chromie]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

EA bought out BioWare, that's what happened.

This.

Well even before that. 

Look at Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age. All games released or in developement before EA came around. 

Bioware was moving away from BG or DnD type of games a long time ago. Unfortunately DA:O is nothing like BG.

[xkg]

Ringo12 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

EA bought out BioWare, that's what happened.

This.

Well even before that. 

Look at Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age. All games released or in developement before EA came around. 

Bioware was moving away from BG or DnD type of games a long time ago. Unfortunately DA:O is nothing like BG.

You are right about Jade Empire, Mass Effect , DAO. But Kotor is basicaly D&D in SW setting.

Modifié par xkg, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:26 .

[Chromie]

xkg wrote...
You are right about Jade Empire, Mass Effect , DAO. But Kotor is basicaly D&D in SW setting.

Right right it uses the D20 system. Still it was before EA that Bioware was moving away from such games.

Modifié par Ringo12, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:32 .

[Savber100]

It happened the moment Laidlaw, our beloved lead designer of JE, took control of the DA franchise from Brent Knowles.

Sorry... I'm having a really bitter taste in my mouth especially after watching this: www.ign.com/videos/2011/07/07/dragon-age-ii-dlc-demo

DA3's combat better add some damn realism rather than this anime, repetitive hack-n-slash.

Just... UGH! X(

Honestly, combat was better back in DA:O. Why? Mainly because when the DA team changed it into faster combat, the lack of response from an attack against a monster becomes really evident.

The monster just stands there as you watch the same animation over and over again, pressing the occasional button for something 'awesome'  to happen, and then slooowwwly watch the health go down.

No plan just spam until the enemy does something else in a cycle of repetitiveness

Modifié par Savber100, 08 juillet 2011 - 07:41 .

[adlocutio]

Ringo12 wrote...

xkg wrote...
You are right about Jade Empire, Mass Effect , DAO. But Kotor is basicaly D&D in SW setting.

Right right it uses the D20 system. Still it was before EA that Bioware was moving away from such games.

This may have been asked before, but do you think it was D&D that made BG & BG2 what they were?   Would there be a market for a cRPG with a  D&D inspired system? If so, why aren't major companies making them?  Is there really a generation gap for that kind of roleplaying?

[xkg]

adlocutio wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

xkg wrote...
You are right about Jade Empire, Mass Effect , DAO. But Kotor is basicaly D&D in SW setting.

Right right it uses the D20 system. Still it was before EA that Bioware was moving away from such games.

This may have been asked before, but do you think it was D&D that made BG & BG2 what they were?   Would there be a market for a cRPG with a  D&D inspired system? If so, why aren't major companies making them?  Is there really a generation gap for that kind of roleplaying?

Can't say that this is universal truth, but for me yes, it was. D&D ruleset is constantly being developed for almost 40 years - and it is very universal, flexible and nearly perfect system now (ofc imo).

No ruleset made for just one / few cRPG games can beat it.

Even GURPS (used in fallout) looks pale in comparison.

Modifié par xkg, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:03 .

[adlocutio]

xkg wrote...
Can't say that this is universal truth, but for me yes, it was. D&D ruleset is constantly being developed for almost 40 years - and it is very universal, flexible and nearly perfect system now (ofc imo).

No ruleset made for just one / few cRPG games can beat it.

Even GURPS (used in fallout) looks pale in comparison.

You mean 4e is nearly perfect in your opinion?  Interesting.  Why do you think more crpgs don't imitate it's non-combat aspects?  I mean,  4e still deals more with out of combat skills/abilities than any crpg I've ever played.  Why aren't skills implemented in more ways in games?  Do people think they're not fun?

I always imagine a lot things from p&p might translate really well to the cinematic crpgs, if they were given a chance. 

[xkg]

adlocutio wrote...

xkg wrote...
Can't say that this is universal truth, but for me yes, it was. D&D ruleset is constantly being developed for almost 40 years - and it is very universal, flexible and nearly perfect system now (ofc imo).

No ruleset made for just one / few cRPG games can beat it.

Even GURPS (used in fallout) looks pale in comparison.

You mean 4e is nearly perfect in your opinion?  Interesting.  Why do you think more crpgs don't imitate it's non-combat aspects?  I mean,  4e still deals more with out of combat skills/abilities than any crpg I've ever played.  Why aren't skills implemented in more ways in games?  Do people think they're not fun?

I always imagine a lot things from p&p might translate really well to the cinematic crpgs, if they were given a chance. 

No no. Maybe I didn't made myself clear, my bad.
I'am talking about 3.5e rules.
Revised (v.3.5)System Reference Document

I've never read the 4e rulebook, all I know is what I've heard - you know, a few opinions here and there, some for, some against - so i really can't comment on it.

Modifié par xkg, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:36 .