3223 réponses à ce sujet

[konfeta]

Wow, and I'm glad you're not a U.S. General. I'm pretty sure every soldier in the military would commit fratricide with your name at the top of the list just because you're incompetent with split-second decisions.

That is actually fairly humorous. Star Craft is derided as a "clickfest" by "intellectuals," yet it is still pretty much the top RTS in terms of depth and complexity. While the physical ability with the mouse matters, the mental stress alone would likely lock out almost every typical RPG player in existence. Micro, macro, multitask, scouting, builds, timings, etc.

But that would be going OT . *ziiip*

Modifié par konfeta, 13 juillet 2011 - 01:25 .

[Lunatic LK47]

konfeta wrote...

That is actually fairly humorous. Star Craft is derided as a "clickfest" by "intellectuals," yet it is still pretty much the top RTS in terms of depth and complexity. While the physical ability with the mouse matters, the mental stress alone would likely lock out almost every typical RPG player in existence. Micro, macro, multitask, scouting, builds, timings, etc.

But that would be going OT . *ziiip*

Heh heh. Glad I could make you laugh about this. No truer words could have been said.

[Varen Spectre]

One thing I also like about RPGs (and RPG hybrids, etc.) are the frequent changes of combat and non-combat sequences. I admit, it is not necessarily an exclusive RPG feature, but RPGs are the games which utilize this type of gameplay by far the most and in the best way.  

I mean apart from most of FPS, TPS and other action adventure games, where all I can get after a longer action sequence, is short cutscene and inventory screen to prepare for next mission, RPGs allow me to slow down, explore the non-combat areas, chat with NPCs, check out shops, inns, bars, play minigames and most importantly, do small sidequests that can be solved either without or with minimum violence and combat.

So... , my questions are:

What do you think about the abovementioned non-combat levels (cities, villages, markets, governmental residences, etc.) in general? What do you think about their presence and execution in Mass Effect games - Citadel, Omega, Illium, Tuchanka, etc.? Do you like them? Are they waste of resources and development time? Are they overrated? Did ME development team find the right balance between combat and non-combat sequences? Do you expect more from Mass Effect 3? Etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I would have loved to get more from Mass Effect 2 in this regard. Especially from the sidequests. They weren't bad, but:

- the non-combat maps were little bit too small - it took me few minutes at best to explore entire levels and try the funniest stuff (dancing, pyjack shooting, betting on varrens). (I know ME3 is supposed to have bigger levels.).
- the non-combat quests were too few and as a result of small maps, they were also too close to each other (many times in the same hall or corridor) and the distance between the task and the solution was very short.
- they were too short (talk to Asari about Quarian, bring the credit chit from the nearest shop, etc.) and kind of too simple. But there were some (relatively) good ones as well, like Liara's hacking quest which had 2 stages.

So, I would like to see larger non-combat worlds in ME3, more complicated non-combat sidequests, more minigames and even more ingame jokes.

And why do I care so much? Well, at the end of the day, most of my best and most heart-warming memories aren't related to combat missions, but to funny non-combat stuff like Elcor Hamlet, Salarian videogame seller, dancing Turian, Urz, deadliest son of a "...." and so on. So what do you think guys, should ME 3 try bring even better non-combat levels?

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:31 .

[Redcoat]

Gatt9 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I'll just post this here instead of making a triple post... What is with sticking the term "generic" to games liked by the "masses"?

I personally find it a bit funny, because you know, I thought that the argument was that "ME1-3 are not RPGs unless they have the following elements of the RPG formula" and that they would rather see "ME3 play like KOTOR or DA:O".

And well, aren't BG1 and 2, and KOTOR and NWN, and DA:O, etcetera etcetera, liked by the masses? Does that make them generic or mainstream? Or that they are dumbed down?

Because a game that is aimed at "Mass Market" generally has a number of characteristic features removed,  because the new target audience finds them unappealing.

For an RPG,  the first thing to go is pretty consistently the "To hit" roll.  Because the masses have a long standing tendency to not understand the concepts of dodging and deflection.  Usually the next thing to go is diplomacy skills,  because the masses don't understand why their options for talking should be limited by the Character's qualities.  From there,  you generally end up with Bethseda,  remove anything that even remotely resembles an RPG mechanic.

It's not limited to RPG's though.  You'll find it in Strategy,  where turn-based thinking style is rapidly axed for RTS "Click as fast as you can! And just aim a large mob at the other guy!" style.  You'll see it in FPS/TPS where health packs,  and limited ammo are removed.  Every genre has it to a degree.

What you end up with is "Generic".  Anything with any complexity is removed to reduce the game to only it's most fundamental characteristics.

ME2 and maybe 3 fit that bill.  ME2 had most of the RPG elements axed (All IMO),  Exploration,  Loot,  complicated things like areas that weren't a straight corridor,  grenades,  it avoided implementing ammo in a sensical way.  It was reduced to the most fundamental characteristics,  all complexity completely eliminated,  such that it was really nothing more than a straight TPS with dialogue.

However, since shooter/RPG hybrids aren't that common, I hereby rename these series Hipster Effect! Now, no one will be able to stick the terms "generic" or "mainstream" to this trilogy!

There's a reason why they're not common,  they're bad design.  The premise behind them is inherently flawed.  All you have is an FPS/TPS with it's UI intentionally crippled to tack on a "Leveling system".  All the system does is progressively decrease the crippled UI to full FPS/TPS.  Once the player has "Leveled" enough,  they can overcome the handicap,  and the entire leveling system is rendered completely redundant.

ME2 didn't have that problem though,  it wasn't a hybrid.  It was a straight up TPS,  as the leveling system was completely redundant from the word "Go".  As I've said,  you kill a YMIR at level 2,  and he's equivalent to any and every "Big boss" in the game,  so since you can kill him,  you can kill all of them,  which is a characteristic of a Shooter.

ME3 remains to be seen.

I'm curious about this...I've seen this mentality that "the masses" cannot understand RPG mechanics. I wonder if that's really the case, or if that's merely how publishers perceive their audience. Sort of like how a prison warden might reach the conclusion that his prisoners' palates cannot handle anything more sophisticated than stale bread, because that's all he ever feeds them.

I'd like to think that gamers are, in general, a bit more intelligent than publishers believe them to be.

[Mallissin]

The only way I will accept ME3 as an RPG is if they make it completely non-linear, let me wander anywhere in the galaxy I want and let me fall in love with any NPC or inanimate object I want.

I don't think that's much to ask for, is it?

Oh oh...you know what would be really cool? Engineers could mix and match pieces of guns, so you could make shock grenades or flame sniper rifles. Wouldn't that be freaking awesome? No?

Okay, I tried.

[Gatt9]

Redcoat wrote...

I'm curious about this...I've seen this mentality that "the masses" cannot understand RPG mechanics. I wonder if that's really the case, or if that's merely how publishers perceive their audience. Sort of like how a prison warden might reach the conclusion that his prisoners' palates cannot handle anything more sophisticated than stale bread, because that's all he ever feeds them.

I'd like to think that gamers are, in general, a bit more intelligent than publishers believe them to be.

Some of it is founded,  some of it isn't.

If you do some google research,  which may require a little legwork at this point,  you'll find alot of dev's have commented over the years that one of the most frequent complaints in an RPG or Strategy game was "Why did my guy miss?  He's right there in front of him!!!". 

You'll also find Armor class was a major issue,  though that system was a bit convulted,  but that's what evolved Damage Resistance from armor instead of AC.  Incidental loot is another very common complaint,  people don't understand that the loot on that wolf is meant to represent what's lying around on the ground from past victims. 

Encumbrance is another biggie,  character based diplomacy skills are often misunderstood.

The thing is though,  this is most often people who bought a game in a genre they don't like,  and/or just as often people who didn't even bother reading the instruction book.  It's not representative of the market as a whole,  but you can't tell a suit that some number of people just shouldn't have bought the game,  all the suit sees is a sale.

So what does the suit do?  Mandates the games be made such that those people aren't bothered by the game.  Which leads us into "Streamlining".

Plus,  you always have the problem of some suit seeing some dissimiliar game and saying "Make it more like that!  It'll sell more units! (So I can get a bigger bonus)".  Which is essentially what happened to TB Strategy games.  Command & Conquer and Warcraft 2 sold huge,  and shortly thereafter *every* strategy game had to be RT.  This was pretty much literally an overnight shift,  because suddenly everything was RTS whether it made sense or not (X-com apocalypse and Acclaim's RT Civilization are probably the poster children.)

So what the problem essentially boils down to is the Industry is run by B-grade suits who're all chasing after Blockbusters because they want their bonuses,  and their only interest is selling as many copies as humanly possible,  which results in the removal of "Unappealing" features.  We're somewhere in the middle of the equivalent of the 1950's B-movie era in gaming,  suits just chasing after bonuses instead of quality.

I mean honestly,  directly from ME2's loading screen,  "You have to talk to people if you want to have a Romance".  That sentence alone says a great deal about either Bioware's customers,  or EA/Bioware's opinion of their customers,  one of the two is on the low end,  Judging from most of this thread,  I'd venture it's EA.

One of the best days in gaming history will be when the Publishers are rendered useless by digital distribution,  'cause that's about what has to happen for us to get away from COD 12 and Halo 7.

Modifié par Gatt9, 13 juillet 2011 - 03:29 .

[Epic777]

@Gatt Thats life. If someone has a better idea, everyone will copy. How many d&d games are there now?

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

littlezack wrote...

 Betrayal would imply that Bioware actually owes its fans anything. It really doesn't. You never gave them any sort of charity - they made games and you bought them, they provided a service and you paid for it.

This.

Some people are taking things way too personally.

Yeah, BioWare didn't make a game that was top of the line, so what? It doesn't mean every game from there on will be as bad.

I don't think you understand. DA2 wasn't a betrayal because it was a bad game. It was a betrayal because the very concept and conceit of it against everything Dragon Age was supposed to be and stand for. Dragon Age was supposed to be BioWare getting back to their roots. It was supposed to be the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" according to them. It was supposed to be made specifically for their old fans. It was supposed to be a full on proper, unwatered down RPG with PC as the lead platform.

Dragon Age 2 came along and went against every single one of those concepts and ideas. Right from the start Laidlaw and co pretty much said that they were changing it from the original vision of Dragon Age into a console-oriented action-RPG that was all action, action, action with a limited voiced protagonist that was half the size of the original, but still kept on trying to act at the same time that this was good for the genre and it would still be a strong, tactical RPG. Laidlaw and co. made pathetic excuses for all their decisions such as, "there were more console players than PC ones, so we're greatly favouring that side and watering down the PC version" and "we don't feel the hardcore RPG audience is big enough for us to succeed, so we're branching out to people who normally don't touch RPGs" and all the other stupid nonsense that pretty much betrayed what Dragon Age was supposed to be. They pretty much said the exact opposite in almost every case of what they were saying while making the original. That's why Brent Knowles got out early: he immediately saw where things were heading and said as much. And he and Dan Tudge are about the only Dragon Age team members I have any respect for still.

Dragon Age 2 wasn't a betrayal because it was a mistake and broken game: it was a betrayal because it turned its back on the very principles and ideals that the original title was supposed to represent. Deliberately and unapologetically. The DA2 team didn't make mistakes, they did exactly what they did on purpose. They literally stabbed old-school PC RPG fans in the back and twisted the knife, making the original game feel like the bait for a bait'n'switch. "Let's just hook them in with the first one, then immediately change everything in the second and hope they stay." Seriously... it was a direct middle-finger to their old fans. And that's why I'm done with the Dragon Age IP now. It's dead to me.

[In Exile]

Redcoat wrote...
I'm curious about this...I've seen this mentality that "the masses" cannot understand RPG mechanics. I wonder if that's really the case, or if that's merely how publishers perceive their audience. Sort of like how a prison warden might reach the conclusion that his prisoners' palates cannot handle anything more sophisticated than stale bread, because that's all he ever feeds them.

I'd like to think that gamers are, in general, a bit more intelligent than publishers believe them to be.

RPG mechanics don't require intelligence. But most RPG mechanis require a lot of time invested, and I think what it really comes down to is most designers thinking gamers are more casual than they need to. 

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
I don't think you understand. DA2 wasn't a betrayal because it was a bad game. It was a betrayal because the very concept and conceit of it against everything Dragon Age was supposed to be and stand for. Dragon Age was supposed to be BioWare getting back to their roots. It was supposed to be the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" according to them. It was supposed to be made specifically for their old fans. It was supposed to be a full on proper, unwatered down RPG with PC as the lead platform.

Mass Effect was the "Spiritual Successor" to KoTOR. I think that word means exactly what Bioware wants it to mean, which is "audience we are trying to hype up for the release of our game for word of mouth". 

I wish I could address more of this rant (+1 for passion, I guess) but I really like this thread and don't want to have it locked for going off topic. We can take it to PM if you want. Let me just say that I think you're really wrong vis a vis your spin. DA:O stopped being any kind of spiritual succesor by the time the marketing campaign for DA:O ramped up and Brent Knowles and Bioware. 

Modifié par In Exile, 13 juillet 2011 - 04:30 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

I wish I could address more of this rant (+1 for passion, I guess) but I really like this thread and don't want to have it locked for going off topic. We can take it to PM if you want. Let me just say that I think you're really wrong vis a vis your spin. DA:O stopped being any kind of spiritual succesor by the time the marketing campaign for DA:O ramped up and Brent Knowles and Bioware. 

It's up to you, but nothing you will tell me in a PM will change my mind even an iota. I followed both games closely and read the interviews, particularly Laidlaw's little ones. I know how it went down, I was there watching the whole time. And if you trying to convince me otherwise would be a waste of your time.

[Garrison2009]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

littlezack wrote...

 Betrayal would imply that Bioware actually owes its fans anything. It really doesn't. You never gave them any sort of charity - they made games and you bought them, they provided a service and you paid for it.

This.

Some people are taking things way too personally.

Yeah, BioWare didn't make a game that was top of the line, so what? It doesn't mean every game from there on will be as bad.

I don't think you understand. DA2 wasn't a betrayal because it was a bad game. It was a betrayal because the very concept and conceit of it against everything Dragon Age was supposed to be and stand for. Dragon Age was supposed to be BioWare getting back to their roots. It was supposed to be the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" according to them. It was supposed to be made specifically for their old fans. It was supposed to be a full on proper, unwatered down RPG with PC as the lead platform.

Dragon Age 2 came along and went against every single one of those concepts and ideas. Right from the start Laidlaw and co pretty much said that they were changing it from the original vision of Dragon Age into a console-oriented action-RPG that was all action, action, action with a limited voiced protagonist that was half the size of the original, but still kept on trying to act at the same time that this was good for the genre and it would still be a strong, tactical RPG. Laidlaw and co. made pathetic excuses for all their decisions such as, "there were more console players than PC ones, so we're greatly favouring that side and watering down the PC version" and "we don't feel the hardcore RPG audience is big enough for us to succeed, so we're branching out to people who normally don't touch RPGs" and all the other stupid nonsense that pretty much betrayed what Dragon Age was supposed to be. They pretty much said the exact opposite in almost every case of what they were saying while making the original. That's why Brent Knowles got out early: he immediately saw where things were heading and said as much. And he and Dan Tudge are about the only Dragon Age team members I have any respect for still.

Dragon Age 2 wasn't a betrayal because it was a mistake and broken game: it was a betrayal because it turned its back on the very principles and ideals that the original title was supposed to represent. Deliberately and unapologetically. The DA2 team didn't make mistakes, they did exactly what they did on purpose. They literally stabbed old-school PC RPG fans in the back and twisted the knife, making the original game feel like the bait for a bait'n'switch. "Let's just hook them in with the first one, then immediately change everything in the second and hope they stay." Seriously... it was a direct middle-finger to their old fans. And that's why I'm done with the Dragon Age IP now. It's dead to me.

Or maybe it was simply their attempt to take the series in a different direction. I know many were upset because, according to them, the story was greatly watered down, the 'RPG' mechanics were greatly watered down and all in all... the game simply sucked for them. I personally disagree with these assumptions.

1) The story is far more personal and less 'big picture', at first, and this threw off fans of Origins immediately. They wanted something that was exactly as big in scale or even more so than the original, and, when they werent given it, they got mad. The truth is that the story, if you look at it all together is actually extremely immersive and entertaining, and everything that you thought was superfluous actually ends up getting tied neatly together at the end. Ultimately it's just about Hawke trying to take care of his family and survive in the city of Kirkwall. I for one, love that. It's refeshing after all the 'Ancient evils' and 'Ultimate enemies' that often star in Bioware games.

2) As for the 'RPG' Mechanics... Playing it on the PC, the only thing I found different about it from origins was that you couldnt change your team's outfits and the combat was far more intense. Am I upset about either of these? Not really. For one, I always got annoyed that my team didnt actually have the brains to choose what to put on in the morning for themselves (Especially Morrigan.. I mean, can you imagine if you really asked her to put on something different? She'd stare holes through you... Quite literally most likely, lol). And as for the second factor, combat, I always got annoyed at Origins gameplay in that particular field. It felt clunky, unresponsive, and, as for how tactical it was, quite often I would lose simply because my team wouldnt listen to my commands or just took too long to do so. DAII's combat is far more tactical in that respect.

3) My third comment is simply this... If you dont like Dragon Age 2... Then just dont play it. Go back and play Origins again or go play some of Bethesda's game or others. Why do you have to come and start to ruin a game for everyone else by throwing mud on it, dragging it through the streets, and then jump up and down on its now stained and twisted box? Why not simply go and play something else that you DO enjoy?  For instance, I tried a demo of the game Bulletstorm the other day. In a nutshell, it sucked. The gameplay was bad, the guns were stupid, and I simply didnt like it (there was no story for goodness sake!) but that doesnt mean I'm going to go on the Bulletstorm forums and start ranting and raving about how god-awful it is. That would just be plain stupid and a waste of my time.

Thank you, I dont mean to insult anyone with this reply, merely to put my opinion out there.

[Terror_K]

Garrison2009 wrote...

3) My third comment is simply this... If you dont like Dragon Age 2... Then just dont play it. Go back and play Origins again or go play some of Bethesda's game or others. Why do you have to come and start to ruin a game for everyone else by throwing mud on it, dragging it through the streets, and then jump up and down on its now stained and twisted box? Why not simply go and play something else that you DO enjoy?

The DA2 already did that to the game and the Dragon Age IP themselves with it. I don't need to do anything further to it.

For instance, I tried a demo of the game Bulletstorm the other day. In a nutshell, it sucked. The gameplay was bad, the guns were stupid, and I simply didnt like it (there was no story for goodness sake!) but that doesnt mean I'm going to go on the Bulletstorm forums and start ranting and raving about how god-awful it is. That would just be plain stupid and a waste of my time.

Thank you, I dont mean to insult anyone with this reply, merely to put my opinion out there.

The comparison is not the same. At all. You were never into a prior Bulletstorm title in the first place, and were never a Bulletstorm fan, and the makers of Bulletstorm (probably) didn't say they were making the game for somebody like you in the first place. A game you hate can't be a betrayal when they never really brought you in in the first place at all. With Dragon Age they did. They said the game was meant to be something and aimed at a particular fanbase, etc. and then with the sequel they do an about face, completely change the whole concept and style and spit in the very faces of those who the original was apparently aimed at.

I'm seriously getting to the point these days where I'm asking myself, "what's the point showing an interest in any game and any form of entertainment at all when it keeps changing into something I hate?"

[littlezack]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm seriously getting to the point these days where I'm asking myself, "what's the point showing an interest in any game and any form of entertainment at all when it keeps changing into something I hate?"

I say this completely seriously, though I know it might not come off that way - you are a sad, depressing individual, and you have my pity.

[Garrison2009]

Terror_K wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

3) My third comment is simply this... If you dont like Dragon Age 2... Then just dont play it. Go back and play Origins again or go play some of Bethesda's game or others. Why do you have to come and start to ruin a game for everyone else by throwing mud on it, dragging it through the streets, and then jump up and down on its now stained and twisted box? Why not simply go and play something else that you DO enjoy?

The DA2 already did that to the game and the Dragon Age IP themselves with it. I don't need to do anything further to it.

For instance, I tried a demo of the game Bulletstorm the other day. In a nutshell, it sucked. The gameplay was bad, the guns were stupid, and I simply didnt like it (there was no story for goodness sake!) but that doesnt mean I'm going to go on the Bulletstorm forums and start ranting and raving about how god-awful it is. That would just be plain stupid and a waste of my time.

Thank you, I dont mean to insult anyone with this reply, merely to put my opinion out there.

The comparison is not the same. At all. You were never into a prior Bulletstorm title in the first place, and were never a Bulletstorm fan, and the makers of Bulletstorm (probably) didn't say they were making the game for somebody like you in the first place. A game you hate can't be a betrayal when they never really brought you in in the first place at all. With Dragon Age they did. They said the game was meant to be something and aimed at a particular fanbase, etc. and then with the sequel they do an about face, completely change the whole concept and style and spit in the very faces of those who the original was apparently aimed at.

I'm seriously getting to the point these days where I'm asking myself, "what's the point showing an interest in any game and any form of entertainment at all when it keeps changing into something I hate?"

I can understand where you're coming from, honestly. You enjoyed the first and the second simply wasnt what you invisioned it should be, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the developer is 'spitting in your face.' Maybe they simply wanted to try something new. Maybe they honestly thought that this is the direction the fans wanted them to go in. Unless Laidlaw himself actually came out and said "We just want to make a hack and slash game. Screw all you RPG fans," you cant really make  the assumption that they are intentionally 'betraying' the RPG fans, as you say.

[Terror_K]

littlezack wrote...

I say this completely seriously, though I know it might not come off that way - you are a sad, depressing individual, and you have my pity.

I don't want your pity. And I'm not sad... I'm angry. Angry at the entertainment industry as a whole for catering to the same mindless sheep over and over, and angry at the mindless sheep for lapping it up to willingly. It's easy to be content and fine with everything when things are great for you because it all caters to you.

Don't pity me. I pity humanity. And I pity the future. Not just for the gaming industry. Just in general.

Garrison2009 wrote...

I can understand where you're coming from, honestly. You enjoyed the first and the second simply wasnt what you invisioned it should be, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the developer is 'spitting in your face.' Maybe they simply wanted to try something new. Maybe they honestly thought that this is the direction the fans wanted them to go in. Unless Laidlaw himself actually came out and said "We just want to make a hack and slash game. Screw all you RPG fans," you cant really make  the assumption that they are intentionally 'betraying' the RPG fans, as you say.

If you've read some of his comments, he pretty much did. Not directly of course, but it all pretty much boiled down to that. That's excactly why I feel that DA2 wasn't just a mistake, but a betrayal: because they outright said they were doing what they were doing and that they were retooling the entire IP away from what it originally was. Thank God there were enough RPG fans on the forums to knock some sense into them after it had come out, but it's not enough.

Modifié par Terror_K, 13 juillet 2011 - 05:20 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

It's up to you, but nothing you will tell me in a PM will change my mind even an iota. I followed both games closely and read the interviews, particularly Laidlaw's little ones. I know how it went down, I was there watching the whole time. And if you trying to convince me otherwise would be a waste of your time.

Your mistake is thinking that DA:O's release meant that DA:O was, at the time it was released, still considered the game it was when it ceased being marketed as any kind of spiritual successor. But more power to you. I don't care what kind of entitled attittude you have going on. 

Edit:

And for god's sake, stop trying to act as if you were chosen by god from birth to stand at the apex of human intelligence because of your taste in games of all things. The melodrama is beyond silly. 

Modifié par In Exile, 13 juillet 2011 - 05:22 .

[littlezack]

Terror_K wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I say this completely seriously, though I know it might not come off that way - you are a sad, depressing individual, and you have my pity.

I don't want your pity. And I'm not sad... I'm angry. Angry at the entertainment industry as a whole for catering to the same mindless sheep over and over, and angry at the mindless sheep for lapping it up to willingly. It's easy to be content and fine with everything when things are great for you because it all caters to you.

Don't pity me. I pity humanity. And I pity the future. Not just for the gaming industry. Just in general.

I swear, I hear bad Linkin Park songs when you talk like that.

[Garrison2009]

Terror_K wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I say this completely seriously, though I know it might not come off that way - you are a sad, depressing individual, and you have my pity.

I don't want your pity. And I'm not sad... I'm angry. Angry at the entertainment industry as a whole for catering to the same mindless sheep over and over, and angry at the mindless sheep for lapping it up to willingly. It's easy to be content and fine with everything when things are great for you because it all caters to you.

Don't pity me. I pity humanity. And I pity the future. Not just for the gaming industry. Just in general.

Garrison2009 wrote...

I can understand where you're coming from, honestly. You enjoyed the first and the second simply wasnt what you invisioned it should be, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the developer is 'spitting in your face.' Maybe they simply wanted to try something new. Maybe they honestly thought that this is the direction the fans wanted them to go in. Unless Laidlaw himself actually came out and said "We just want to make a hack and slash game. Screw all you RPG fans," you cant really make  the assumption that they are intentionally 'betraying' the RPG fans, as you say.

If you've read some of his comments, he pretty much did. Not directly of course, but it all pretty much boiled down to that. That's excactly why I feel that DA2 wasn't just a mistake, but a betrayal: because they outright said they were doing what they were doing and that they were retooling the entire IP away from what it originally was. Thank God there were enough RPG fans on the forums to knock some sense into them after it had come out, but it's not enough.

I must admit, I honestly didnt follow his comments all that closely during DAII's development so I'll have to differ to your judgement on this one. And, on another note, the Mass Effect Fanfic you've got in your signature... I was wondering, did you write it?

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

Your mistake is thinking that DA:O's release meant that DA:O was, at the time it was released, still considered the game it was when it ceased being marketed as any kind of spiritual successor. But more power to you. I don't care what kind of entitled you have going on. 

Hey, I hated DA:O's marketing as much as anybody. I was on the forums railing against it directly, and expressing my concern for what it meant for DA:O itself. But it turned out to be highly unrepresentative of the final product and ended up pretty much being just that: marketing. I think that DA:O by that point was too finished to be meddled with by EA, Laidlaw or anybody else after Dan Tudge left and that marketing blitz started pretty much directly following that. After all, the PC version had been technically finished by that point (Tudge left right after it had) and it was basically sitting there getting bug-tested while Laidlaw took over and hammered out the console versions and others finished off Shale.

And as much as I hated that marketing, I think I'd rather BioWare take that approach and make their games merely look like little more than over-the-top blood, sex, action and violence than have them actually end up that way.

[Garrison2009]

littlezack wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I say this completely seriously, though I know it might not come off that way - you are a sad, depressing individual, and you have my pity.

I don't want your pity. And I'm not sad... I'm angry. Angry at the entertainment industry as a whole for catering to the same mindless sheep over and over, and angry at the mindless sheep for lapping it up to willingly. It's easy to be content and fine with everything when things are great for you because it all caters to you.

Don't pity me. I pity humanity. And I pity the future. Not just for the gaming industry. Just in general.

I swear, I hear bad Linkin Park songs when you talk like that.

Ok, let's not be antagonistic, dude... People can have a difference of opinion without resorting to insults or trying to denegrate the others character...

[Terror_K]

Garrison2009 wrote...

And, on another note, the Mass Effect Fanfic you've got in your signature... I was wondering, did you write it?

Yes. Why do you ask?

[littlezack]

Garrison2009 wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I say this completely seriously, though I know it might not come off that way - you are a sad, depressing individual, and you have my pity.

I don't want your pity. And I'm not sad... I'm angry. Angry at the entertainment industry as a whole for catering to the same mindless sheep over and over, and angry at the mindless sheep for lapping it up to willingly. It's easy to be content and fine with everything when things are great for you because it all caters to you.

Don't pity me. I pity humanity. And I pity the future. Not just for the gaming industry. Just in general.

I swear, I hear bad Linkin Park songs when you talk like that.

Ok, let's not be antagonistic, dude... People can have a difference of opinion without resorting to insults or trying to denegrate the others character...

Hey, I'm not the one who thinks the world is full of idiots just because they don't share my taste in videogames.

[Garrison2009]

Terror_K wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

And, on another note, the Mass Effect Fanfic you've got in your signature... I was wondering, did you write it?

Yes. Why do you ask?

lol, I've acutally been reading it this whole time. It's excellent. Really got a feel for the ME universe there.

[Terror_K]

Garrison2009 wrote...

lol, I've acutally been reading it this whole time. It's excellent. Really got a feel for the ME universe there.

Ah. Thanks. I try.

littlezack wrote...

Hey, I'm not the one who thinks the world is full of idiots just because they don't share my taste in videogames.

That's not the reason at all. The world has always been full of idiots, long before video games were around. My issue is that developers these days seem to just be targeting the one same audience instead of making different games for different people. Everybody wants the same large pie and all the bakers want to make the same large pie. Ip integrity and consistency seem to too easily be tossed down the drain for the sake of success, and those who are getting the pie don't care about it so long as they enjoy the pie.

I'm not expecting the games, movies, shows, etc. that don't appeal to me now to be altered to suit me. They are for other people who like those things. So why is it that the games, movies, shows, etc. that do appeal to me have to be altered to suit them, simply because there is more of them? Why can't anything be made these days that just sticks to its guns and stays true to itself? Why does it always have to get twisted to suit the majority?