182 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I made the mistake of getting Oblivion on Xbox rather than PC, so I just spend my time frustrated that I can't aim spells properly (I don't play consoles much). My character became a vampire, which I didn't intend to happen, I just wasn't paying much attention. The rest of the game was pretty much ruined for me because the quest to stop being a vampire is excessively dull and time consuming. So yeah, I never finished even the main quest from that game (then again, the main quest was hardly an engaging storyline - never understood why my character was the one to save everyone)

So yeah - both dragon ages are much better I wish more rpgs had party combat, I find it much more fun and also more realistic story wise. I would never travel around trying to save the world by myself...

I always loved party based combat. Even when the party is just represented by portraits as in the Might and Magic Series. I still got attached to them, RPed them as characters.....LOADS of fun!

[Il Divo]

As a huge Morrowind fan, the idea that Oblivion was a better game than DA2 admittedly makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.  For me, Oblivion was simply another generic fantasy setting.

[ForgeDark]

Persephone wrote...

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I made the mistake of getting Oblivion on Xbox rather than PC, so I just spend my time frustrated that I can't aim spells properly (I don't play consoles much). My character became a vampire, which I didn't intend to happen, I just wasn't paying much attention. The rest of the game was pretty much ruined for me because the quest to stop being a vampire is excessively dull and time consuming. So yeah, I never finished even the main quest from that game (then again, the main quest was hardly an engaging storyline - never understood why my character was the one to save everyone)

So yeah - both dragon ages are much better I wish more rpgs had party combat, I find it much more fun and also more realistic story wise. I would never travel around trying to save the world by myself...

I always loved party based combat. Even when the party is just represented by portraits as in the Might and Magic Series. I still got attached to them, RPed them as characters.....LOADS of fun!

Yeah I think I find it hard to get attached to my main character unless he/she has more interactions with others in the world, in a single character RPG I never feel my character has a personality because there is no reason for them to have one. The game just starts to feel like a grind, moving from one quest to another with no real purpose. Plus combat is more fun if I have to keep everyone alive not just myself 

[Sutekh]

Sidney wrote...

So wait, your post is an opinion, mine is full of facts? Again, people hate having their opinions questioned and have to resort to this stuff. Is it really necessary to preface all comments with "In my opinion..." so people understand that?

Last OT on the opinion things: It's not prefacing everything with "in my opinion" or "I think". It's the tone and what is actually said.

When you say "Oblivion is a terrible game", I'm almost OK with that. I can read between the words. I wouldn't say "WoW is a terrible game", though. I say "I hate WoW". But when you explain why it is/you think that Oblivion is a terrible game with "Oblivion is what WoW players play when out of Internet", or defend DA2 with "You people keep confusing tedium with complexity", "You people are whining", it comes across as incredibly opinionated and intolerant of others' opinions. And people who actually liked Oblivion or disliked the non-existent crafting in DA2 might be slightly offended that you deem their tastes as "terrible" or their preferences as "confused". And then, they react badly. Because, seriously, who are you to tell me what I must like or dislike?

I don't mind my opinions being questioned. If I did, I'd steer clear of forums, wouldn't I? It can make for great discussion, if done with respect to each others' opinion, and if one avoid blanket statements and assumptions. And if one actually address what the other is saying (yeah, I'm talking about the "crafting" thing) instead of jumping at whatever conclusions they've reached while misreading and/or ignoring others' input. So far, you've come across as doing none of those things, and that makes you sound like some guy on a soapbox haranguing the crowd instead of someone discussing something. You're on a forum, not on a blog. You're supposed to talk to people who, in turn, are supposed to reply.

/OT

Seriously, go search out the leveling guides for Oblivion they are out there and quite detailed.

Oh, I believe you. I've seen guides about everything. But some people not grasping the thing doesn't mean everyone. Doesn't even mean most people. Like I said, I never felt the need for a guide, neither did my then twelve-year old. I thought the system was indeed very badly thought, though, but not that complex. I've seen much worse in terms of needless complexity and not-very-logical. This is not to say those needing a guide were stupid noobs, mind. I've needed guidance for things others find obvious.

Oblivion and DA2 are apples and ornages but then again any of the Bethesda games are apples and oranges to the Bioware games since BG2. Bethesda gives you a world and let's you play. Bioware gives you a story to play. Different focus.

Agreed 100%. And one can like both styles. The TES series offers a great world to play with, with lore, and characters and different cultures, and lots of different things to explore. Morrowind was very, very good in that aspect. The "alien" and varied look of Vvardenfell, for instance, was very immersive. 

As I said, there is a lot more to a game than the game mechanics. I generally hate game mechanics getting in my way and the Bethesda games do a great job of letting mechanics get in the way but in the end the lack of plot and character is what kills those games for me because they are just about combat, looting and leveling. Bethesda games being single player grindfests.

Yeah, in Oblivion proper, the main plot was not that good, or rather quite badly executed. The repetitive "artificial" Oblivion gates didn't help either (I hated them so much after a while that I modded them off after my first playthrough). But the game shone in side quests, characters and lore. The Shivering Isles expansion was very well done, too, plot-wise. The easy-to-use toolset was a tremendous advantage. The crafting system (potions, soulgems and spellcrafting) was rich and very well done from Daggerfall on.

Finally, TES games never felt to me as "single player grindfests", because I never played them like that. Never. I guess it's a pure matter of taste, or the way you approach a game. Maybe you just don't like those kind of games, or the so-called "grindfest" aspect is repelling for you? Maybe "open sandbox" is just not your thing? But that doesn't make them "terrible games" just as my hatred of WoW says nothing about its actual qualities and flaws.

All that being said, and not addressed to you, when I see statements like "Bethesda pwned Bioware" I want to punch something. Hard. First, I don't think it's true. Second, apples, oranges and all that sorts of things. Third, I wasn't under the impression the companies were at war (although a little bit of competition is always healthy).

I don't get how people lament the so-called "decline" of CRPG, want more of them and more diversity in subgenres, and seem to rejoice at/ want one company pwning the other in the same breath. 

[erynnar]

Persephone wrote...

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

I made the mistake of getting Oblivion on Xbox rather than PC, so I just spend my time frustrated that I can't aim spells properly (I don't play consoles much). My character became a vampire, which I didn't intend to happen, I just wasn't paying much attention. The rest of the game was pretty much ruined for me because the quest to stop being a vampire is excessively dull and time consuming. So yeah, I never finished even the main quest from that game (then again, the main quest was hardly an engaging storyline - never understood why my character was the one to save everyone)

So yeah - both dragon ages are much better I wish more rpgs had party combat, I find it much more fun and also more realistic story wise. I would never travel around trying to save the world by myself...

I always loved party based combat. Even when the party is just represented by portraits as in the Might and Magic Series. I still got attached to them, RPed them as characters.....LOADS of fun!

Love party based combat too Miss P. I miss it in TW2.

[In Exile]

Sutekh wrote...
Finally, TES games never felt to me as "single player grindfests", because I never played them like that. Never. I guess it's a pure matter of taste, or the way you approach a game. Maybe you just don't like those kind of games, or the so-called "grindfest" aspect is repelling for you? Maybe "open sandbox" is just not your thing? But that doesn't make them "terrible games" just as my hatred of WoW says nothing about its actual qualities and flaws.

But all of that boils down to inventing your own content, doesn't it?

I don't get how people lament the so-called "decline" of CRPG, want more of them and more diversity in subgenres, and seem to rejoice at/ want one company pwning the other in the same breath.

Because it is more about proving a certain type of gamestyle is superior (whether or not a game plays like that) than the genre itself.

[Sutekh]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Sutekh wrote...
Finally, TES games never felt to me as "single player grindfests", because I never played them like that. Never. I guess it's a pure matter of taste, or the way you approach a game. Maybe you just don't like those kind of games, or the so-called "grindfest" aspect is repelling for you? Maybe "open sandbox" is just not your thing? But that doesn't make them "terrible games" just as my hatred of WoW says nothing about its actual qualities and flaws. [/quote]
But all of that boils down to inventing your own content, doesn't it? [/quote]

To a (small) extent. I'm using the materials given by the game, and I roleplay. It's more freeform than in tightly-plotted stories such as DA, but it also works very well for me. I like both styles. I approach them differently, though. Let's say  that DA is "Take me by the hand and make me live your story" while TES is "Show me your world and let me live in it."

[quote]I don't get how people lament the so-called "decline" of CRPG, want more of them and more diversity in subgenres, and seem to rejoice at/ want one company pwning the other in the same breath. [/quote]Because it is more about proving a certain type of gamestyle is superior (whether or not a game plays like that) than the genre itself. [/quote]

A pissing contest, then? Well, not very interesting nor constructive, is it? 

[In Exile]

Sutekh wrote...
To a (small) extent. I'm using the materials given by the game, and I roleplay. It's more freeform than in tightly-plotted stories such as DA, but it also works very well for me. I like both styles. I approach them differently, though. Let's say  that DA is "Take me by the hand and make me live your story" while TES is "Show me your world and let me live in it."

But it comes down to imagination. For example, I wouldn't mind a reactive world where I could simply interact with it, doing what I want. But TES hasn't even come close to providing that. There's no social interaction to speak of, and the general content is travelling (alone) while collecting trinkets from cavesg/

A pissing contest, then? Well, not very interesting nor constructive, is it? 

I think the essence of any discussion on a RPG is, apparently, to win at it.

[Sutekh]

In Exile wrote...
But it comes down to imagination. For example, I wouldn't mind a reactive world where I could simply interact with it, doing what I want. But TES hasn't even come close to providing that. There's no social interaction to speak of, and the general content is travelling (alone) while collecting trinkets from caves

That's where I disagree. Arena was a bit like that (well, a lot), but since Daggerfall, TES offers you some damn good side-quests and NPCs. It's not only errand quests (or the dreaded escort quests), far from it. For most of them, there's a story behind, and you're here to live that story. For some, you don't have to fight at all. For one in particular, it's pure infiltration and fighting means failing. And the main plot in Morrowind/Tribunal was well written, too, even when (or because) it left many things left to interpretation.

Here's an example: how many games give you a "codex" which you can decypher and then get an insight of what the Truth might be? Not mandatory in any way, just a plus you could do if you wished (and didn't miss it). A bit like the Enigma of Kirkwall, but with the decyphering added, so it wasn't just delivered to you.

There's very little social interaction, no romance - although I hear they're gonna implement some social things in Skyrim? No sure how they'll handle that - because the games aren't about you, but about Tamriel. In each game, you get to visit a different province, get acquainted with different cultures, get to meet some important characters... Even when meeting them has no point re: the main plot, it's nice to see legends "in the flesh". And you also become someone for the world, as the plots unfold. You even had a statue of your PC in Oblivion. And wasn't that nice to our narcissistic egos.

It works (for me) because Tamriel is a consistent, complex, rich world (I admit that Oblivion was lacking in terms of VA, though). It might feel quite lonely, true, but I know that type of roleplaying isn't the games' point. I do understand that people dislike this aspect and don't like them. But if [general] you approach them with grinding in mind, then they will become boring. That's not what they're about.

And maybe I like it, for this specific type of RPG, that my imagination has to fill the blanks, because it gives a sensation of freedom which goes just well with the overall style of the game.

Not to say the games were flawless, because they certainly weren't, and of course, that doesn't make TES better than DA in any way. Just different.

Modifié par Sutekh, 26 juin 2011 - 11:39 .

[element eater]

Foolsfolly wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Well, Skyrim is still there, but yes, i think Bioware are going about there own decline. I think Bethesda have overtaken them and are now the king of WRPG"s.

HA! BioWare in decline? Not as long as the Mass Effect series is going. They're doing great stuff with Mass Effect.

They've just stalled with Dragon Age.

actualy i agree with KLUME Bethesada or some one else will overtake bioware soon as leading rpg developers if not specificly as games developers. Don't get me wrong ME is awsome and one of my favourate franchises and i rate it much higher then anythin bethesda has produced but its pretty borderline in terms of its rpg qualities i think of it more as an rpg lite and with DA in the state its in i think  bioware realy lack for a solid RPG right now.

On topic i dont think da2 is part of a decline in the genre as a whole but i think it might mark a decline in bioware as an rpg developer

[Sidney]

Sutekh wrote...

Finally, TES games never felt to me as "single player grindfests", because I never played them like that. Never. I guess it's a pure matter of taste, or the way you approach a game. Maybe you just don't like those kind of games, or the so-called "grindfest" aspect is repelling for you? Maybe "open sandbox" is just not your thing? But that doesn't make them "terrible games" just as my hatred of WoW says nothing about its actual qualities and flaws.

All that being said, and not addressed to you, when I see statements like "Bethesda pwned Bioware" I want to punch something. Hard. First, I don't think it's true. Second, apples, oranges and all that sorts of things. Third, I wasn't under the impression the companies were at war (although a little bit of competition is always healthy).

I don't get how people lament the so-called "decline" of CRPG, want more of them and more diversity in subgenres, and seem to rejoice at/ want one company pwning the other in the same breath. 

It isn't that TES/FO3 don't have some good and even great side quests - as much as some folks hate it I thought the vampirisim cure "quest" was pretty darn cool because of how involved and significant it felt. The problem for me is that when you talk about 300 hours of gameplay the good/great takes up maybe 20-30 hours of that. Other than those moments the endless sea of copy/paste (mind you a MUCH better copy paste effect than DA2 used) of caves, mines, and Ayleid ruins are mostly grinding away to level and get money. It always feels like I'm sifting through so much noise to find the great tunes in the Bethesda games.

I like that Bethesda and Bioware make different types of games. I wish I enjoyed the Bethesda games more but I don't want to see all RPG's look like DAO, or ME2, or FNV or TES. The genre can't be static and it can't be just one thing. The core of the RPG experience is the ability to interact with the story in a meaningful way and player characters and not payers that matter that is what I want to be sure stays every7thing else is really just here and there to me.

[Sidney]

simfamSP wrote...

In Planescape Torment. I define the nameless one via multiple text options. In BG I have a mix of both! Though people could argue that every game is an RPG then. RPG's have that level of sophistication that other games don't touch upon those areas.

But remember, roleplaying can be done in any game you want, even in Assassin's Creed. But that's a totally different arguement all together. That's RP, not RPG.

Not sure I agree you can role play in AC even because Ezzio, yours and mine, will end the game in exactly the same state and having made all the same decisions. That's still the key. Even something like Bioshock that has leveling (via colecting Adam and not XP), inventory, customization and even some choices doesn't rise to the level of an RPG because you've functionally got IIRC 2 choices (the little sisters and how to deal with the artist). Bioshock and AC have a rich story but when people talk about Hawke not being "their" character that's not true. Ezzio and the dude from Bioshock aren't your characters (that being the point in Bioshock) because you have no/very limited control over what they do.

[element eater]

^ i like the above post although i must say i never felt like Hawke was my character but i guess thats just myexperiance of him/her

@simfam

i didn't say DA2 wasn't an rpg I just said its not a very good example of one. and there in is my point.

just because 2 games fall into the genre, doesn't mean they are of the same standard. Likewise different RPG's will embrace differant genre staples to lesser and greater extents. ME2 in my opinion is an example of an rpg which has very few rpg elements in it.


also id like to point out that rpg's mean differant things to differant people saying what an rpg is or isnt is simply a matter of opinion.

Modifié par element eater, 27 juin 2011 - 01:00 .

[In Exile]

Sutekh wrote...
That's where I disagree. Arena was a bit like that (well, a lot), but since Daggerfall, TES offers you some damn good side-quests and NPCs. It's not only errand quests (or the dreaded escort quests), far from it. For most of them, there's a story behind, and you're here to live that story. For some, you don't have to fight at all. For one in particular, it's pure infiltration and fighting means failing. And the main plot in Morrowind/Tribunal was well written, too, even when (or because) it left many things left to interpretation.

The main plot in Morrowind was very short, and for the majority of it you weren't interact with characters, you were running around the map chased by the horrible, horrible cliff raiders (or whatever those birds were).

Here's an example: how many games give you a "codex" which you can decypher and then get an insight of what the Truth might be? Not mandatory in any way, just a plus you could do if you wished (and didn't miss it). A bit like the Enigma of Kirkwall, but with the decyphering added, so it wasn't just delivered to you.

But that's all exploration. If you like that sort of thing, it's great. I don't - it's content I have to make up a reason to be interested in.

There's very little social interaction, no romance - although I hear they're gonna implement some social things in Skyrim? No sure how they'll handle that - because the games aren't about you, but about Tamriel. In each game, you get to visit a different province, get acquainted with different cultures, get to meet some important characters... Even when meeting them has no point re: the main plot, it's nice to see legends "in the flesh". And you also become someone for the world, as the plots unfold. You even had a statue of your PC in Oblivion. And wasn't that nice to our narcissistic egos.

But there's nothing there. There's lore, but you read the lore. It's like playing Book Quest V: Search for the Library. I think an RPG involves reactivity. In Morrowind, that was done relatively well, though you could still wind up in some mutually exclusive guilds. In Oblivion it was horrible - you could essentially centralize all guilds under your rule and no one even bothers knowing who you are, outside of some very poor scripted dialogue.

It works (for me) because Tamriel is a consistent, complex, rich world (I admit that Oblivion was lacking in terms of VA, though). It might feel quite lonely, true, but I know that type of roleplaying isn't the games' point. I do understand that people dislike this aspect and don't like them. But if [general] you approach them with grinding in mind, then they will become boring. That's not what they're about.

Grinding for lore (by tracking down books) isn't different than grinding for XP (well, learning points).

And maybe I like it, for this specific type of RPG, that my imagination has to fill the blanks, because it gives a sensation of freedom which goes just well with the overall style of the game.

When I pay $50 for a game, I'm not paying for a box of props that just works to stiffle my imagination. An RPG is way to restrictive to allow for imagination unless your imagination is very limited. IMO, anyway.

[ZeshinX]

I wouldn't say CRPGs are in decline so much as they are in transition. It happens, over time, that genres tend to change (or whatever word you would choose). Devs do it as a way to prevent from becoming stagnant (as they see it). I'm sure to them it is seen as a way to stay on top of new technologies, explore new ways of doing things, and basically to explore their own creativity all while trying to make money doing it.

When this happens, fans of "how things were" typically decry that the genre is dying, or in decline. Sometimes that ends up being true (though I personally can't think of a specific moment where it is).

Frankly, I just think things are changing. I say changing as I find saying "in decline" or "dying" is mostly a matter of personal taste.

In my case, I prefer CRPGs in the vein of Baldur's Gate, NWN1 & 2, KotoR 1 &2, DAO, etc. These styles of CRPGs seem to be coming out less and less, with more of a direction towards the action RPG. DA2 was somewhere in that transitional area. I disliked it (DA2) massively with few exceptions. I don't think this means the genre is dying. I think it means it's changing such that it no longer suits my taste in a CRPG. It means Bioware will likely be going down a road that I will no longer accompany them on. Their current games (i.e. DA2, ME3, TOR) are all very action-y RPG (relying more heavily on twitch gaming you might find in an FPS, though this is slightly less-so with DA2, but only slightly). Those don't appeal to me (I never cared for the ME series, and I abhor MMOs).

Time always tells and change is inevitable. I hope to continue to support Bioware as a customer, but if their direction of design goes along a different road than I would like to walk, then I bid them a fond farewell, thanks for the many years of fun, and I hope they continue to succeed in their new direction.  Perhaps our paths will cross again in the future, or perhaps not.

Nothing lasts forever.  

Modifié par ZeshinX, 27 juin 2011 - 02:27 .

[sphinxess]

ZeshinX wrote...

I wouldn't say CRPGs are in decline so much as they are in transition. It happens, over time, that genres tend to change (or whatever word you would choose). Devs do it as a way to prevent from becoming stagnant (as they see it). I'm sure to them it is seen as a way to stay on top of new technologies, explore new ways of doing things, and basically to explore their own creativity all while trying to make money doing it.

When this happens, fans of "how things were" typically decry that the genre is dying, or in decline. Sometimes that ends up being true (though I personally can't think of a specific moment where it is).

Frankly, I just think things are changing. I say changing as I find saying "in decline" or "dying" is mostly a matter of personal taste.

In my case, I prefer CRPGs in the vein of Baldur's Gate, NWN1 & 2, KotoR 1 &2, DAO, etc. These styles of CRPGs seem to be coming out less and less, with more of a direction towards the action RPG. DA2 was somewhere in that transitional area. I disliked it (DA2) massively with few exceptions. I don't think this means the genre is dying. I think it means it's changing such that it no longer suits my taste in a CRPG. It means Bioware will likely be going down a road that I will no longer accompany them on. Their current games (i.e. DA2, ME3, TOR) are all very action-y RPG (relying more heavily on twitch gaming you might find in an FPS, though this is slightly less-so with DA2, but only slightly). Those don't appeal to me (I never cared for the ME series, and I abhor MMOs).

Time always tells and change is inevitable. I hope to continue to support Bioware as a customer, but if their direction of design goes along a different road than I would like to walk, then I bid them a fond farewell, thanks for the many years of fun, and I hope they continue to succeed in their new direction.  Perhaps our paths will cross again in the future, or perhaps not.

Nothing lasts forever.  

I really don't see what the concern is - the old time RPG crowd is still there. If a AAA developer like Bioware doesnt think thats enough for them to create a game for us thats fine - another company will eventually come along and pick up the slack.

[Sutekh]

Sidney wrote...

It isn't that TES/FO3 don't have some good and even great side quests - as much as some folks hate it I thought the vampirisim cure "quest" was pretty darn cool because of how involved and significant it felt. The problem for me is that when you talk about 300 hours of gameplay the good/great takes up maybe 20-30 hours of that. Other than those moments the endless sea of copy/paste (mind you a MUCH better copy paste effect than DA2 used) of caves, mines, and Ayleid ruins are mostly grinding away to level and get money. It always feels like I'm sifting through so much noise to find the great tunes in the Bethesda games.

At this point, all I can say is that it didn't feel like that to me. I won't deny there were moments of tedium (Oblivion in particular, and especially regarding those darn gates), but they weren't most of the game. I'm also not trying to convince anyone to like TES, just explaining why I like it, and why, to me, they're very good games.

I see where you're coming from. I see how someone could experience the game this way, I do. But I didn't.

I like that Bethesda and Bioware make different types of games. I wish I enjoyed the Bethesda games more but I don't want to see all RPG's look like DAO, or ME2, or FNV or TES. The genre can't be static and it can't be just one thing.

I strongly agree on the diversity thing. I don't want all games to be like DAO or TES, and I certainly don't want to have the feeling I'm playing the same game again and again, only in different clothing. Thirty versions of DAO - which I absolutely adore in a very irrational way - would be boring after a while. But I also want to be able to play games like that in the future. I want DAO, TES and DA2 and TW2. And Divinity II. And VtM: Bloodlines. Hell, I'd kill for a modernized version of Might and Magic. I want them all. I'm greedy like that

The core of the RPG experience is the ability to interact with the story in a meaningful way and player characters and not payers that matter that is what I want to be sure stays every7thing else is really just here and there to me.

You may be right in theory, but in practice, the little details, the "plus", are what, to me, make the difference between a good experience and a so-so experience. There's also the case (DA2) where the good was so good it made me forget about the bad (well, not really forget, but maybe forgive?), but I deeply regret that the bad was there to begin with, because it feels like a potential that didn't quite deliver, and it's a pity.

Modifié par Sutekh, 27 juin 2011 - 03:35 .

[Sutekh]

In Exile wrote...

The main plot in Morrowind was very short, and for the majority of it you weren't interact with characters, you were running around the map chased by the horrible, horrible cliff raiders (or whatever those birds were).

Cliff Racers. Nobody like them, that's why they're so grumpy.

The main plot wasn't that short, and even less if you add Tribunal in the mix. I now there was a shortcut where you could finish in a few minutes, but that was exploiting an oversight (I wouldn't call it an exploit).

Plus, being good doesn't mean being long, especially since, as I said (somewhere in this thread), TES games aren't about the main plot. 

But that's all exploration. If you like that sort of thing, it's great. I don't - it's content I have to make up a reason to be interested in.

Yes, I like exploration. And I also tend to be very involved once a given universe catch my interest. It was just an example of how TES aren't about fetching something in a cave, but have layers upon layers of things to see, experience and interact with. If you're not into that sort of thing, but more into immediate gratification (and there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying you are), then of course, you can't like that.

But there's nothing there. There's lore, but you read the lore. It's like playing Book Quest V: Search for the Library. I think an RPG involves reactivity. In Morrowind, that was done relatively well, though you could still wind up in some mutually exclusive guilds. In Oblivion it was horrible - you could essentially centralize all guilds under your rule and no one even bothers knowing who you are, outside of some very poor scripted dialogue.

Yes, factions were shallow. I said as much myself in another thread. This said, the lore in question wasn't only obtained through books. Most of it you got from dialogs and quests. The literature per se is quite succinct, in fact, and many books are little slices of novels and the like. For instance, I could read a vague description of the Daedra Sanguiyn in a book on Daedras, but what I know of the guy, I know it by talking to him and doing quests for him. I didn't need the book for that, just like you don't need the codexes (codices?) to learn about the Chantry or the Crows.

Grinding for lore (by tracking down books) isn't different than grinding for XP (well, learning points).

See my answer above. Besides, I've never tracked books. Found them, sometimes bought them, but never tracked them.

When I pay $50 for a game, I'm not paying for a box of props that just works to stiffle my imagination. An RPG is way to restrictive to allow for imagination unless your imagination is very limited. IMO, anyway.

To each his own, then. I'll say what I said to Sidney, maybe this type of game simply isn't for you, and that's fine. Me, I'm happy to pay 50€ to be entertained, have a very good x hours, and explore a new universe in the process.

As for RPG needing a poor imagination for imagination to work? That's a restrictive take on imagination and on RPGs. It would be true only if said imagination could only work when a setting is provided, which isn't the case (for me). It happens to also work in this case. And I was also under the impression that the RP in RPG needed some imagination to work (and we're back at "What is an RPG").

Modifié par Sutekh, 27 juin 2011 - 03:29 .

[Gunderic]

ZeshinX wrote...

I wouldn't say CRPGs are in decline so much as they are in transition. It happens, over time, that genres tend to change (or whatever word you would choose). Devs do it as a way to prevent from becoming stagnant (as they see it). I'm sure to them it is seen as a way to stay on top of new technologies, explore new ways of doing things, and basically to explore their own creativity all while trying to make money doing it.

When this happens, fans of "how things were" typically decry that the genre is dying, or in decline. Sometimes that ends up being true (though I personally can't think of a specific moment where it is).

Frankly, I just think things are changing. I say changing as I find saying "in decline" or "dying" is mostly a matter of personal taste.

In my case, I prefer CRPGs in the vein of Baldur's Gate, NWN1 & 2, KotoR 1 &2, DAO, etc. These styles of CRPGs seem to be coming out less and less, with more of a direction towards the action RPG. DA2 was somewhere in that transitional area. I disliked it (DA2) massively with few exceptions. I don't think this means the genre is dying. I think it means it's changing such that it no longer suits my taste in a CRPG. It means Bioware will likely be going down a road that I will no longer accompany them on. Their current games (i.e. DA2, ME3, TOR) are all very action-y RPG (relying more heavily on twitch gaming you might find in an FPS, though this is slightly less-so with DA2, but only slightly). Those don't appeal to me (I never cared for the ME series, and I abhor MMOs).

Time always tells and change is inevitable. I hope to continue to support Bioware as a customer, but if their direction of design goes along a different road than I would like to walk, then I bid them a fond farewell, thanks for the many years of fun, and I hope they continue to succeed in their new direction.  Perhaps our paths will cross again in the future, or perhaps not.

Nothing lasts forever.  

Interesting post; I think I agree for the most part!

Personally, I don't need a roleplaying game to follow a specific formula that has been done in the past. I like the idea of experimentiation and more than welcome it -- that is, as long as the result is not a half-assed product, but one designed to appeal to some of the things people typically like about the genre. ( Example: Witcher 2 )

And no, romances, cinematics, decent facial animations, and the ability to pause, entertaining as they may be, are not quite stretching the boundaries of the genre, not in a good way, at least.

But it's their company and they decide what goes. Just how I feel under no obligation to wish them successs with their new direction, provided BioWare sticks with it: I see no reason to do so. I certainly don't want them to go down under for no reason or simply out of spite; I just don't see the point ( for me ) in supporting/rooting for a company whose 'new direction', if proven successful, would convince even more developers to follow trend to take note from BioWare's practices. Which is exactly the opposite of what I want.

[Sidney]

Sutekh wrote...

At this point, all I can say is that it didn't feel like that to me. I won't deny there were moments of tedium (Oblivion in particular, and especially regarding those darn gates), but they weren't most of the game. I'm also not trying to convince anyone to like TES, just explaining why I like it, and why, to me, they're very good games.

But I also want to be able to play games like that in the future. I want DAO, TES and DA2 and TW2. And Divinity II. And VtM: Bloodlines. Hell, I'd kill for a modernized version of Might and Magic. I want them all. I'm greedy like that

You may be right in theory, but in practice, the little details, the "plus", are what, to me, make the difference between a good experience and a so-so experience. T

If I could find the $%^& who designed the Oblivion Gates and then colored them red I'd beat him with a stick. It was hands down the worst re-use until DA2 totally shattered the record for worst re-use ever.

I'd love to see a not buggy modernized VtM - man that was just awful use of an engine. I've just replayed KoTORII (which reminds me a lot of DA2 in terms of being a game that under all it's flaws could have been exceptional) and would love, LOVE to see an updated KoTOR - not the MMO they are doing.

I loved playing ME2 and not looting and wonking about with inventory. I'd like details if it was something like what you get when you delve into the details of Civ or EUII or something like that. Vendor trash, looting, most crafting and such are just things that don't require thought. There are times details work. In the FO world inventory and crafting work because it is a world of repairing and rebuilding stuff. It works there. Potion making in DAO or god help me rune making in DAA didn't do anything for me and I hate stripping worn boots off dead bodies - doesn't feel all that heroic.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sutekh wrote...
Cliff Racers. Nobody like them, that's why they're so grumpy.

The main plot wasn't that short, and even less if you add Tribunal in the mix. I now there was a shortcut where you could finish in a few minutes, but that was exploiting an oversight (I wouldn't call it an exploit).[/quote]

That was very poor phrasing on my part. Let me clarify: the main quest had a very small ''content to travel'' ratio - you spend most of the main quest in ruins, caves, or otherwise travelling the map (finding the Ashland tribes was Morrowind's way of telling me to go **** myself, IMO).

My objection to it being well-written is that there was so very little of it, it's hard to look at it as more than a 15-step outline for a book.

[/quote]Plus, being good doesn't mean being long, especially since, as I said (somewhere in this thread), TES games aren't about the main plot. [/quote]

Certainly; but they aren't about the sidequests, either, because there aren't very many of those. They're about travelling and killing, and looting rewards (whether these are from ruins or bookcases).

[quote]Yes, I like exploration. And I also tend to be very involved once a given universe catch my interest. It was just an example of how TES aren't about fetching something in a cave, but have layers upon layers of things to see, experience and interact with. If you're not into that sort of thing, but more into immediate gratification (and there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying you are), then of course, you can't like that.[/quote]

Actually, exploration is the most basic form of immediate gratification. But that's my neuroscientist cap.

TES is about fetching things. A cave is a place where you can fetch things, but a bookcase is treated the same way. Reading a book doesn't let you (except very rarely) become a librarian and have academic debates in the capital - it just means you (the player, not the player-character) have learned more about the world.

Reactivity and content in an RPG is in-character content that is a direct consequence of your actions, and exclusive based on those actions. TES games are, by and large, a box where you have lots of things you can find and play with, but are essentially static in that you can pick up most of them wherever you are.

[quote]Yes, factions were shallow. I said as much myself in another thread. This said, the lore in question wasn't only obtained through books. Most of it you got from dialogs and quests. The literature per se is quite succinct, in fact, and many books are little slices of novels and the like. For instance, I could read a vague description of the Daedra Sanguiyn in a book on Daedras, but what I know of the guy, I know it by talking to him and doing quests for him. I didn't need the book for that, just like you don't need the codexes (codices?) to learn about the Chantry or the Crows.[/quote]

Codices. I couldn't get through Oblivion (that level scaling was so horrid it just made me set it on fire), so I had to gogle the Daedra Sanguine and can't speak very much on the quest line itself.

But, again, I have to apologize. I've got caught up in my own attitude about TES and used terms to refer to the wrong sort of things. When I say books, I really meant NPCS. Let me clarify:

Dialogue in TES is 'dialogue'. My objection is this - quests are essentially fetch quests. At least in Morrowind (and I can't say I completed most of the game at all) I don't recall any detailed or otherwise varied quests - it was generally NPC-NPC, with no ability to speak to NPCs beside picking topics down from the list. It wasn't an interaction where you learned about the setting - it was the library index where you searched by keyword.

[quote]To each his own, then. I'll say what I said to Sidney, maybe this type of game simply isn't for you, and that's fine. Me, I'm happy to pay 50€ to be entertained, have a very good x hours, and explore a new universe in the process.
[/quote]

I'm just pointing out my issue with the imagination response. It aggravates me that one defence of games like TES is imagination, with the implication being that a dislike of TES means a lack of imagination.

[quote]As for RPG needing a poor imagination for imagination to work? That's a restrictive take on imagination and on RPGs. It would be true only if said imagination could only work when a setting is provided, which isn't the case (for me). It happens to also work in this case. And I was also under the impression that the RP in RPG needed some imagination to work (and we're back at "What is an RPG").[/quote]

I think boxes kill the imagination, and RPGs are a box. They're bounded. The fact that there is a point A and a point B, and you are restricted by the laws, rules, characters and mechanism on screen is too restrictive (IMO) for the imagination.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...
Potion making in DAO or god help me rune making in DAA didn't do anything for me and I hate stripping worn boots off dead bodies - doesn't feel all that heroic.

I take it I can't entice you into Hobo Quest 3: The Search for Warm Socks? Shame. It had a detailed thread customization system where you can independently pick the atoms of the socks you are equiping, for effectively infinite customization options. Your hobo might look the same as another hobo, but not at the atomic level!