3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Juha81FIN]

In Exile wrote...

Juha81FIN wrote...

You do realize that Jade Empire was used as testbed for their future games. For me it was nice, simple and fun game. (going offtopic)

Apparently the brainstorm for JE2 involved a lot of conceps that bled into future Bioware games, like the interrupt.

And powerwheel.

[AlanC9]

marshalleck wrote...

Jade Empire was terrible, even worse than DA2

A "why" would be nice there.

I've got no opinion mayself; never played it.

[Savber100]

AlanC9 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Jade Empire was terrible, even worse than DA2

A "why" would be nice there.

I've got no opinion mayself; never played it.

It was basically DA2 with NO customizability of character. If I recalled all the characters were already set at the beginning of the game. The game was technically a button masher as you string out combos. 

Not really normal Bioware fare...

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The practical answer (with combat) is that it requires more combat animations, and those are costly.

We already have animations for the moves in the game.  There would be no added animation cost.

More generally, knowledge of things opens up potential actions. Anyone can try to fix a computer, but even having the concept of 'replace damaged memory stick' as an intentional action requires knowledge of what it is a memory stick is and can do.

I would hope we'd have that anyway with the game's mechanics being documented somewhere.  And for roleplayers it wouldn't matter.  They'd choose the actions in-character.  All this would do for them is make roleplaying easier.

As for knowing what to do with a memory stick, that the player knows what to do with it and the game lets him select that as an option doesn't guarantee success.  Success would be determined by a RNG; unskilled characters would fail nearly all of the time.

Okay, that changes the meaning. Could you clarify? I think I know what you're driving at, but I want to be sure before commenting.

If the player can customise his character, but those customised characteristics aren't relevant to the game's authored narrative, or the NPC's interpretation of events, or even the NPC's interests, then it wouldn't make any sense to have those reactions be affected by those details.

The player would still be free to customise his character, but only insofar as it wouldn't elicit reactions from the game.

You said that a reactive game was incompatible with customisation, and that's not true.  Certainly the game cannot react to those details which the player has customised (not without extensive development costs, and even then the reaction would be limited to customisation the developers had foreseen), but that has always been true.

For example, the NWN OC takes a character from some unknown background (determined by the player), sets a rigidly defined short-term background (student at academy, though the reasons for or details of that enrolment are again left to the player), and then drops the PC into a dramatic environment where the NPCs' concerns are more immediate and those background details no longer matter at all.

But those background details inform the player's in-character decision-making, so they still matter to the player.  The game literally doesn't care, because the background is completely irrelvant to the authored narrative, but they can strongly affect the emergent narrative.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that a reactive game cannot allow customisation.  That's simply false.

An RPG will always require some mental crafting on the part of the player for the PC.

Exactly.  I'd even go so far as to say there's an emergent narrative in every game that allows player input.  In some games, though, that emergent narrative just isn't very good, and that makes for a lesser game.

DA:O tried that model, and sometimes it failed (with Wynne and being a Grey Warden, because they didn't use the right refusal) but other times it succeded brilliantly (with the Guardian; especially with a mage PC being asked about Jowan).

That it ever succeeded makes it automatically superior to DA2 or the ME games, which didn't allow meaningful player control of the PC at any point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

What was so bad about this? The number of situations where it's worth equipping a non-proficient weapon is very small. I'd have gone the other way with this myself, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Whether it's worth it to equip a non-proficient weapon is entirely up to the player.  Equipment should be an in-character decision only.

Every time the designers create a restriction like this, it harms roleplaying.  And there was no gameplay benefit at all.  The only justification I can imagine is that BioWare was concerned that some players wouldn't understand weapon proficiency at the same time as not understanding the combat log at the same time as not having read the documentation, so then BioWare chose to protect those gamers from themselves.

But that's precisely similar to then saying "You're too dumb to make this decision, so we're going to make it for you," and that's an incredibly offensive position.

Honestly, I would pay money for DLC that unlocked these restrictions.  Nearly every piece of mass-market software published today needs an I-am-not-an-idiot button, and I would happily pay extra for one.

Just as I would like to be able to choose any of the dialogue options the game contains for that decision hub, regardless of whether my character's skils would allow hom to speak that line effectively,

This would require a fairly large zot commitment, of course.

Why?  The lines are already written and recorded.  The reactions to an appropriate line and an inapproriate line are already written and recorded.  What extra zots are needed?

Is "invent" the right word here? I've always seen this as an analytic activity rather than a creative one.

There are insufficient data to support analysis.  When you draw a conclusion about another person's thoughts, you made it up.

[upsettingshorts]

If you're talking about being able to take Paragon or Renegade regardless of points, you can use Gibbed's Save Editor on PC to max out your points unlocking them both - I usually put in 1000 for both and can pick my responses without issue.

In Mass Effect 1, again because I hate Paragon/Renegade, I simply use the Console to give myself enough P/R and Charm/Intimidate to essentially render the entire dichotomy moot.

Though that doesn't really address "speak the line effectively."  It lets you decide whether or not your character could or would though, as you wouldn't have to take say, the Paragon option simply because you might need to take it again later.

Also, Jade Empire is wildly underrated.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 juillet 2011 - 07:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Jade Empire was terrible, even worse than DA2

A "why" would be nice there.

I've got no opinion mayself; never played it.

I liked it.  Despite it having a very linear plot, and very linear levels, and twitch-based action combat, and pre-defined PCs (you chose choose among 6-7 of them), I liked it.

Why did I like JE when I dislike DA2 and ME2?

Because the JE protagonist was silent, and I got to choose full dialogue options.  That really does appear to be all I need from a BioWare RPG.  The other features I like do make a game better, and to be a great game it certainly needs more than just the old dialogue system, but that old dialogue system does appear to be mandatory.

[Juha81FIN]

AlanC9 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Jade Empire was terrible, even worse than DA2

A "why" would be nice there.

I've got no opinion mayself; never played it.

At the start of the game you can choose from male/ fem body types and few different looks with different martial arts fighting styles or you can make your own custom character with what is given at that time. As you progress through the game you improve three different mainstats and get many more fighting styles that have their own stats which can be increased. Only loot the game has as I remember are different charms that further improve mainstats. It is very simple system but it works and you either like or dislike it. Companion characters appearance and weapons cannot be changed, but you can give them different fighting styles if I remember right.

[upsettingshorts]

Companions can only be toggled between Attack and Support, and some are only one or the other.  Black Whirlwind can only attack, Henpecked Hou (see left) can only support.

Inventory is as you describe. Dialogue is as Sylvius describes.

The actual combat is extremely close to a cRPG gaining much acclaim on this board... The Witcher 2. Except there are more styles.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 juillet 2011 - 08:08 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

E3 2006 Mass Effect Demo

Yeah the final game turned out to be really different, but notice how they played up the conversation systems, realistic expressions, and branching dialogue.

"Mass Effect combines fast paced action with amazing tactical depth and a deep role-playing system"

E3 2011 Mass Effect 3 Demo

"Mass Effect 3 is all about kick-**** action, choices with consequence, and immersion in an epic  sci-fi universe"

Oh, and Kinect...

Marketing allways sales what's new, not something what's has been same for 5 years.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

From what I played of the two, I'd say Jade Empire was better than DA2. True, Real-time combat always wins in my book.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Mass Effect has TPS combat, what means it's player skill based combat. How to hell you can have good TPS combat, if it's character progression stat based. You can't, it's paradox. 

You're presupposing your conclusion.

I insist that Mass Effect does not have TPS combat, because - as you correctly point out - TPS combat is based on player skill, and ME's combat is not based on player skill; it's stat-driven.

If you mean ME1? Yeah, ME1 failed in TPS side baddly. It was more action RPG combat with aiming.

This is keeping Mass Effect serie  as Cinematic action RPG with TPS combat, rather than Diablo or PnP D&D.

Only one of thwe two ME games so far can credibly claim to be a "cinematic action RPG with TPS combat", though.  Why do you keep saying that's true of the "ME games".  It isn't.  Only ME2 bears a significant resemblance to a TPS game (and even then, the ability to aim while paused makes the game significantly different from a typical TPS game).

You keep trying to think ME series is how you see it. Thinking that when game design fails for players, it's part of orginal design for game serie. Like ME2 failed in deeper RPG customation and how ME1 failed in TPS combat and good inventory. Still you judge these games, like failure part was ME series design direction. It's good that you see the games as it is, but denying where ME serie is going or what was the purpose, that's not so good. Example ME3, is it ME series direction?

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

From what I played of the two, I'd say Jade Empire was better than DA2. True, Real-time combat always wins in my book.

As far I can say, they where about same. It's hard to judge or compare two games, what are design 6 years apart and are also so different kind of games, because technology, design and possibilities has change in that time too. I would say DA2 had more design mistakes than JE. Of course JE was also simpler than DA2, but anyway. This isn't in topic anymore..

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juillet 2011 - 08:50 .

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...

E3 2006 Mass Effect Demo

Yeah the final game turned out to be really different, but notice how they played up the conversation systems, realistic expressions, and branching dialogue.

"Mass Effect combines fast paced action with amazing tactical depth and a deep role-playing system"

And BioWare showing a dialogue scene with animation features that existed in the gaming industry for years, turned out so well for them.

The point of Marketing is not to make a rich game, since they have no inclusion in the development process at all. It's to grab people by the ear and yell at them: 'You MUST buy this. Do you hear me?'

Besides, BW did show off their e-peen a few times, and without it ME's sales would probably not have been as successful.

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
You "dismissing" my point carries no weight with me. ME2 is pure shooter in game-play mechanics, simple as that.

I find your flexibility with facts and dismissing debates all together very interesting.

Playing only with weapons makes ME2 shooter-based only, but playing only with powers doesn't make it RPG-based only. Coolio.

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 09:16 .

[Ahriman]

Savber100 wrote...
It was basically DA2 with NO customizability of character. If I recalled all the characters were already set at the beginning of the game. The game was technically a button masher as you string out combos. 

Not really normal Bioware fare...

Devil's advocate here. It had nice style, interesting plotwists and choices which really mattered. Oh, and it has best 'Good'/'Evil' philoshy in Bioware games so far.

[Mister Mida]

Wizz wrote...
Oh, and it has best 'Good'/'Evil' philoshy in Bioware games so far.

Meh. It felt pretty much the same as the Light Side/Dark Side and Paragon/Renegade system to me.

[Ahriman]

Mister Mida wrote...

Wizz wrote...
Oh, and it has best 'Good'/'Evil' philoshy in Bioware games so far.

Meh. It felt pretty much the same as the Light Side/Dark Side and Paragon/Renegade system to me.

Well, after first chapter it mostly turned into usual Saint/Jerk system.

[Weiser_Cain]

It'd be nice if you could be a Jerk and be right or Wrong and nice about it, but I guess four choices is too much to ask.

[Phaedon]

Paragon/Renegade has nothing to do with good and evil, it's Deontological idealism vs utilitarianism, with some shades of machiavellianism and other ethics that probably have to do with the thought process that the player goes through when picking an option. It's still mostly a very vague concept of deontology vs I do all my actions for the greater good, which I define by myself.

AlanC9 wrote...
And while Bioware doesn't define gaming, neither do you. You may not accept ME2 as an RPG, but others do.

Edit: The underlying question is what it means for a genre distinction to "work." Your definition may be coherent, but I don't see how it's useful.

You know that I agree with you most of the times, but I'll stop you there.

BioWare doesn't define gaming? Or at least their games?

If games are art, then doesn't each artist interpret art differently and implement their artistic vision differently?

I doubt that BioWare makes their games by checking a big checklist about what is a true RPG and what is a true shooter, and then implement each feature after another.

That's the equivallent of complaining about one of Picaso's drawings not being surrealist enough, and claiming that Picaso did drawings so that they could be 'as surrealist as possible, and hipster as f**k'

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 09:28 .

[Lumikki]

You mean like paragon/renegade paths aren't good vs evil, but compassion vs ruthless. Different ways into same end goal, what is save the galaxy.

[Phaedon]

Lumikki wrote...

You mean like paragon/renegade paths aren't good vs evil, but compassion vs ruthless. Different ways into same end goal, what is save the galaxy.

Not quite. That would make choice irrelevant.

The player makes different choices based on their ethics, which leads to different results.

Sure, maybe the galaxy will survive or die in the end, but that's only only the end of the journey.

It is the road to the journey that matters. You can have races extinct and people killed with your choices, the goal is not the same, it's the player that defines the goal.

A galaxy with 2 races extinct and humanity ruling the rest of the aliens is not the same with a galxy where all the races work together.

[Lumikki]

I have now issues as lacking english words. So, it's more ideology differences how the galaxy order should be build, based ethics as how people see as what's best way to rule galaxy. Aren't the other path, what isn't based for togather as equal, little like what reapers are doing now, with only different that the rulers are exterminate others totally.

I'm not sure does others agree with that, because as far I have seen they seem to think that it's not about ideology differences, but more like what cost we end in same goal. One is doing it with any cost to make sure we win not matter what and other also think the way how it's done also matters, so we don't become like those who we are fighting agaist.

I think this paragon/renegade path issue is little same what we seen in new "V" TV-serie. How to fight the war. The resistance (The Fifth Column) has this moral issues, how to do it..

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juillet 2011 - 10:54 .

[Weiser_Cain]

Why don't we go back to arguing about when exactly bioware abandoned RPG players?

[Lumikki]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Why don't we go back to arguing about when exactly bioware abandoned RPG players?

They haven't abandoned RPG players. They have abandoned hardcore traditional statical RPG players.

[Phaedon]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Why don't we go back to arguing about when exactly bioware abandoned RPG players?

Or did, perhaps, the people who you refer to as "RPG players" abandon art and what was fun about gaming?

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 juillet 2011 - 10:58 .