628 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
Yet you're making a big deal over this relatively tiny gameplay-story segregation, which does create an icongruity given their existence.  (I'll also note your reply here is not responsive to the point of the passage you quoted, for which DA2 served as an incidental illustration.  I'm not sure I see the need for evasiveness.)  

I'm not making a big deal about it. All I said was that I can think of a very good reason for it to be cut. And then I had 3 (or was it 4) people act either shocked I would support this, or tell me how integral it is to an RPG. 


As for the post itself - you were talking about your preferences: that you think it's all very tedious. There's no response to make to that, other than to say I respect your taste.

I don't know why you think tutorials always have blocks of text, but even if they did, I don't see why you'd assume they couldn't encompass inventory management, ability selection, etc.  

I have yet to see an RPG tutorial that doesn't. And the issue isn't that it couldn't encompass it - it's that reading about how to do it doesn't teach you about what to do in-game.

The point isn't to teach someone just what leveling up is (though you'd need to) but to also teach them how it works in that game. What are some ideal stat distributions for a mage? How does the mage build work?

This is all great for us to figure out on our own as RPG veterans... but it takes a lot of motivation to do it, and for people who are just starting with the genre, this is an introduction that could more easily draw them in. 

[DaBigDragon]

csfteeeer wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Origins was imposing for folks who have never played an RPG of that depth before. There's a lot of inventory managing that goes along with that game and yes, it was a difficult game even on Normal if you were not used to that type of gameplay.

I've only played through Origins once because I can't get over the clunky combat. DA2 has its faults, which have been acknowledged numerous times by Bioware by the way, but I love the combat. The story from the first game was better in my opinion, but Legacy was a step in the right direction for DA2.

A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that Bioware, in my opinion, wants to get away from making games that only a smaller group of people can get into easily and enjoy right off the bat without a lot of practice or trial and error that a new player would need to get into the series.

I, as many other people do, disagree with this and can prove that wrong.

my case is this: My Girlfriend, never was an RPG player, she wasn't even more than a Casual Gamer, she played a few basic games here and there, but nothing more, she never really understood why i was inmersed in these games and why i loved them so much.
and then, she saw me playing Origins, we didn't really had anything to do, so she sat back and watched me play Origins on my PC(using an HDMI cable to play on the TV, but that's another thing), and she was actually really getting into it, she liked watching me play, she liked the Characters and how the game looked.
a few days later she asked me if i could play, i said ok, and then, she started playing.
she started in the Morning, and did not stop playing night, and i actually had to force her to get up.

She Loved it, she was talking to me about how much she thought the game was fun, wonderful, with a great story chracters, and all that.

and she was addicted to it, to the point where, in her birthday(a couple of months after that) i had to buy her a damn Alienware Laptop so i could finally play on my trusty PC(Alienware: Raping your wallet in every chance they get:crying:).

Ever since then, she has gotten into RPGs, and she has played many(and i mean, MANY), and she loves them, but Origins is and has always been her favorite because of what it is and what it represents to her.

However, when we finally bought DA2(which she was doubtful about), i started playing myself, and she started watching me like she does when she doesn't have anything to play, and believe me when i say, she was not pleased.
the very first comment she said was "No Multiple Race choices? Bulls**t", and i agreed, but decided to just keep playing, the next comment she gave me was "What the hell is up with their faces? they're squared and weird, kinda cartoony i think", i agreed too btw, but kept i playing, and then, she complained about the combat "ok, what is up with the combat? i can appreciate being fast, but this fast? it's just stupid, and there is so much blood in your face that it's just annoying", and a lot of other things she said afterwards.

She watched me play the hole game(obviously not in one sit) cause she wanted to see if it gets any better, and the first thing she said after the ending, was "Ok, two things, one, that was a horrible ending, and two, this game blows", something i agreed with.

you see my point? Origins was not a super imposing game for regular people, it simply was more than other games out there (it's actually a lot more simple than games like Baldur's Gate), and yet, many people who would have never even considered playing this kind of game, still enjoyed it and loved it.

This is why i don't buy into the hole "Busted" thing, that is why is i think it's Bulls**t to think that just because a game it's more complex than others out there, people who are not into these games will not like it, and that is why i don't think companies know what they're talking about when they say things about about Larger audiences, because not everything can a be COD and they should know that.

lol @ Alienware raping your wallet, this is true.

Back on topic, yes I am sure there were many situations like this for a lot of people who played Origins the first time and your story would be considered a success story, HOWEVER, I also believe there were just as many people in the opposite situation where they tried Origins and found the learning curve too steep and essentially gave up on the game.

There's no way the Dragon Age team can account for every specific player situation, they can only address things in a BROAD sense. They did this by trying different mechanics to make it easier for new players, BUT at the same time keeping the harder difficulties, well, difficult, to allow veteran players to enjoy a challenge.

I DO understand your point that maybe too much was changed to address this issue of a steep learning curve for new players, however Mike Laidlaw has already stated that he and the team would be taking what worked in Origins and what worked in DA2 and making it work for the next game in the series.

Hell, they are even addressing all this in DLCs.

Modifié par DaBigDragon, 15 août 2011 - 03:45 .

[Valcutio]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Why did I have to accept the changes in DAO from games like PST or Baldur's Gate? Why was DAO so dumbed down from what I was use to playing?

For the record I like both DAO and DA2 for what they are not what I want them to be. Because what I want could be very different from what you want.

DAO was marketed as the spiritual successor to BG2 but it was it's own seperate game series. Expectations ended there. You can't dumb something down that had no previous entry. DA2 is a different topic. It's the direct sequel to Origins and people had every right to have certain expectations.

People want to use the excuse that they only had half the time to develop it. Fine - then it should have cost half as much to buy.

[In Exile]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Even some adventure games like Monkey Island and King's Quest describe more than what their 3D rendered, fully rotateable inventory items look like, so until Dragon Age's items start getting unique icons you can view inside, out and around, *some* written description is better than a generic silver ring icon.

Just because other games do it, that's not evidence of anything. It certainly won't convince me it isn't a bad idea.

Believe it or not, there are a number of players who will kit up their character according to what items are described as looking like, or with nostalgia items.

Why would you think I wouldn't believe that? I pick items purely on visual aesthetic, ignoring equipment bonuses. Never actually played an RPG where my basic build wasn't good enough for the highest difficultly without the best gear. In a game where we could actually see the items, I mean.

The stats might suck, but not everyone plays RPGs to minmax or build the best combat monkey. From a roleplaying perspective the words that describe certain items are very important and can be used by the player to tell a story about their own character. Just by what s/he wears.

If you know anything about me, you know that I disagree fundamentally with the idea that an RPG is about make-believe. 

Is this exclusive to pen and paper RPGers? No. I know that before I played my first D&D game, my Avatar in Ultima never went anywhere without wearing her Ankh medallion, even though it did absolutely nothing besides look pretty and mean something to my character.

I don't mean the thinking is unique to PnP. I mean that the comment about the GM, that's not something I could have known, becaue of my ignorance about PnP.

I don't think it's practical to have every item get a cinematic exposition Blade of Mercy style.

I don't think we should have that may items. 

Like I said though, I wasn't debating Codex entries for items. I was debating the removal of (sensory/brief) item descriptions from DA2, and hoping it wasn't done because they were deemed daunting to new players.

Like I said: I think there are other reasons to dislike it, which was my only point.

I think small descriptions are an awesome way to convey little pieces of common, easily-acquired information, especially details that go beyond the visual and aural senses that computer games are limited to.

If the game doesn't react to that, though, then it's a just pointless writing. If the armour of flowers smells like flowers, that's fine... but then NPCs (or others in the party) should comment on that to make it "real". 

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...

Combat difficulty was NOT what Laidlaw meant when he was talking about "accessability to a larger audience". He was talking about game complexity. The mechanics, the learning curve, and skill-sets and stuff like that. ie. The "wall of stats" that traditional RPGs are known to greet you with at the door.

But again, I don't see how DA:O applies. It was very SIMPLE and intuitive  by traditional RPG standards. Why the hell do they feel they need to make it even more simple?

DA:O had simple skills and talents... but it was just as much of a mess as other RPGs. 

How does spellpower affect damage? More of it is good, but in what way? How much damage does a warrior talent deal? A rogue talent? 

We had no tooltips. That was bad. 

Yes, it was simple if you've played lots of RPGs before... but that's not the point at all. Bioware was certainly wrong in the way that they went about trying to make an RPG acccesible, but that doesn't mean RPGs shouldn't be made accesible. 

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Item descriptions are to me what they actually appear to be -- that is, a part of the UI, the user interface. It's not something the PC must be necessarily aware of (and in many cases he/she most likely isn't) It's instead something designed to give the player better idea about the item in question.

None of that information is gameplay related. It's all lore related. In which case, if that's true, what's the difference with it being in the codex, like I originally said? 

[Elhanan]

Valcutio wrote...

I understand where you're coming from but does that mean we should remove the heart and complexities that RPG fans love just to appease those who are unskilled in the genre? Shouldn't we expect a game to challenge us more than the previous entries and raise the bar?

I'm all for inclusiveness and reduced difficulty settings for the less skilled. What I'm against is dumbing down a game entirely to pander to those that are too lazy to engage their minds in something more demanding than deciding which order to headshot enemies.

I love these devs that speak as if wanting a game to challenge us in some other way than twitch-factor is selfish. It's not. Wanting difficult puzzles, conversation statistics and consequences for poor decisions is NOT selfish. It's called being an intelligent gamer that wants more from their playing sessions than a high score.

Will this exclude some people? Yeah. Just like pumpkin pie excludes those that don't like pumpkin. You don't start pumping the pumpkin pie full of apple just to get a few new customers. You make the best damn pumpkin pie you can and soon you'll convert some pumpkin haters over to your side.

The heart removed? Awkward phraseology. What is this so called heart?

And there seems to be many posting here that DA2 was as (or more) challenging than DAO. My own case is rather unique, but as a long time gamer, I do not see the lack of a challenge or the lowering of any standard. There are puzzles, conversation stats, and consequenses; just not the conclusionary consequenses some may desire.

While I agree that one should make the best pie one has to offer, expanding into mixed-berry ain't a bad thing at all.

[In Exile]

Valcutio wrote...
I think that's the problem, David. You don't put DA:O on a pedestal. Maybe that's why it's a far better game. I'm sure Brent Knowles put it on a pedestal when he was helping to craft it. If he would have been involved with the sequel, I'm sure it would have gone a long way toward making another masterpiece. And no game is perfect - but to diminish a wonderful game like DAO to make excuses for the disaster that is DA2 is lame.  

Maybe it's because I was here for most of the time DA:O was getting made... but DA:O was a brutal exercise in the difference between reality and desire. There were a lot of features the devs. wanted to have in DA:O that never saw the light of day becaus of implementation problems, or costs, etc. 

Personal nemesis for the origins. Addiction mechanics for potions. A potential qunari origin (can't remember when it was cut in the process). 

DA:O had a lot of scope, but Bioware had to take a scapel to it before even releasing it. 

Also, I think all this lavish praise on Brent Knowles is getting borderline creepy. 

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

@DABigDragon

No, it's not an issue. But what I am saying, is that if someone is new to an rpg like DAO, and if a player never played this type of game....then I think as a player I'd have sense to turn the game down until I figured out what I was doing. I myself did this with DAO since I'd only played NWN. So I don't agree with you.

I wouldn't come on the forums or any forum and complain that the game was to hard for an rpg when the game is buildt with a easy, normal, hard, and nightmare setting. Therefore I don't understand Bioware making this change for a new rpg player new to the series. This decision just doesn't make sense to me. Especially where they changed the settings between causal and normal vs hard and nightmare. Or the direction they seemed to be going in this direction with the game being more streamlined for new players.

I'd love to play this game on hard or nightmare myself, my system won't allow it, and that isn't another players fault or the Biowares. I just don't agree this is the reason that they are giving. I guess we won't learn their reason until DA3 and what they decide to fix or take away, or return too from the original game. Personally, with Laidlaw's attitude, I don't see them returning to anything like the original game.

[In Exile]

Valcutio wrote...
I love these devs that speak as if wanting a game to challenge us in some other way than twitch-factor is selfish. It's not. Wanting difficult puzzles, conversation statistics and consequences for poor decisions is NOT selfish. It's called being an intelligent gamer that wants more from their playing sessions than a high score.

Just because you want more puzzles, conversation statistics & consequences for poor decisions doesn't mean you're more intelligent. Just like, to parallel your argument, liking pumpkin pie doesn't mean you're more intelligent. 

Will this exclude some people? Yeah. Just like pumpkin pie excludes those that don't like pumpkin. You don't start pumping the pumpkin pie full of apple just to get a few new customers. You make the best damn pumpkin pie you can and soon you'll convert some pumpkin haters over to your side.

Or they'll still hate pumpkin pie, because they hate the taste of pumpkin, unless you cover that taste up. 

The issue is the learning curve, and Bioware is going about it all wrong, I agree.

But there are two arguments here:

1) Is Bioware right about complexity in RPGs being daunting & needlesly hard to overcome? 
2) Is Bioware right about how complexity in RPGs ought to be handled in light of 1) to draw in more players?

[Ariella]

Valcutio wrote...


I understand where you're coming from but does that mean we should remove the heart and complexities that RPG fans love just to appease those who are unskilled in the genre? Shouldn't we expect a game to challenge us more than the previous entries and raise the bar?

I'm all for inclusiveness and reduced difficulty settings for the less skilled. What I'm against is dumbing down a game entirely to pander to those that are too lazy to engage their minds in something more demanding than deciding which order to headshot enemies.

Let me guess, this is a veiled reference to the CoD crowd. Could we get off that high horse, considering no one has ever said that Bioware is planning on pandering to those who play CoD, Halo or any other shooter. It's a case of telephone.

I love these devs that speak as if wanting a game to challenge us in some other way than twitch-factor is selfish. It's not. Wanting difficult puzzles, conversation statistics and consequences for poor decisions is NOT selfish. It's called being an intelligent gamer that wants more from their playing sessions than a high score.

I've never seen a Bioware developer say anything of the kind. If you could cite an exact quote, I'd be more than willing to be corrected.

Will this exclude some people? Yeah. Just like pumpkin pie excludes those that don't like pumpkin. You don't start pumping the pumpkin pie full of apple just to get a few new customers. You make the best damn pumpkin pie you can and soon you'll convert some pumpkin haters over to your side.

Trying to compare making a pie to making a video game in a competative market... Oy vey. Bioware has to expand their customer base, thus making RPGs more accessable by better GUI and tooltips, better balance for new players is a good thing. No one is saying that skills won't make a return in another form, and as for puzzles: did you play Legacy? And what kind of choices are you talking about when you say "poor choices"? Are you talking about having to haul dead characters to be resurrected or if the party dies you have to start from a save game? What exactly do you mean by "poor choices"?

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
*snip* As for the post itself - you were talking about your preferences: that you think it's all very tedious. There's no response to make to that, other than to say I respect your taste.*snip*
I have yet to see an RPG tutorial that doesn't. And the issue isn't that it couldn't encompass it - it's that reading about how to do it doesn't teach you about what to do in-game.

The point isn't to teach someone just what leveling up is (though you'd need to) but to also teach them how it works in that game. What are some ideal stat distributions for a mage? How does the mage build work?

This is all great for us to figure out on our own as RPG veterans... but it takes a lot of motivation to do it, and for people who are just starting with the genre, this is an introduction that could more easily draw them in. 

The passage you quoted mostly did not talk about my preferences, but that aside, even if I were to concede you could only look to RPG tutorials as a guide, it seems strange to think Bioware could innovate on the game itself but not a tutorial.  I'll add there's a big difference between explaining how leveling-up works in-game and discussing ideal stat distributions, something I doubt any in-game easing into the mechanics would elucidate anyway (DA2's didn't).

[Xilizhra]

DA2 had plenty of issues, but none of them seemed to come from deliberate changes from the general philosophy of Origins. If anything, I'd say DA2 is far superior to Origins in terms of plain gameplay, and has several advantages in plot and companions.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
The passage you quoted mostly did not talk about my preferences,

You said you thought it was tedious. You said I was free to prefer otherwise.

Then you said that this segregation was a small part of DA2's general gameplay-story segregation problem. 

The first part is preference. The second, I pointed out isn't related. Yes, DA2 totally failed on that front. But that doesn't mean anything about item descriptions.

but that aside, even if I were to concede you could only look to RPG tutorials as a guide, it seems strange to think Bioware could innovate on the game itself but not a tutorial.  I'll add there's a big difference between explaining how leveling-up works in-game and discussing ideal stat distributions, something I doubt any in-game easing into the mechanics would elucidate anyway (DA2's didn't).

Of course there's no reason for Bioware not to innovate. I only addressed your point about the problem with thinking you can solve accesibility with just a tutorial, or that the problem is gameplay as opposed to the more theoretical elements of an RPG. 

You don't need to talk about ideal. But to use DA:O as an example, if you want to build a good tank, knowing what the **** aggro is, how to draw it, and how to keep it, would go a long way toward making an RPG make sense. 

You don't need to make the game easy (if you make it clear new players should play on casual/normal to learn the mechanics), but that lets you ease in lots of new players in a hardcore RPG. 

Modifié par In Exile, 15 août 2011 - 04:22 .

[Elhanan]

Satyricon331 wrote...

The passage you quoted mostly did not talk about my preferences, but that aside, even if I were to concede you could only look to RPG tutorials as a guide, it seems strange to think Bioware could innovate on the game itself but not a tutorial.  I'll add there's a big difference between explaining how leveling-up works in-game and discussing ideal stat distributions, something I doubt any in-game easing into the mechanics would elucidate anyway (DA2's didn't).

Personally, I found that hovering the cursor over the Attribute in DA2 made choices a lot better for general builds. And while I suggested with others that the tutorial should be early and optional, the actual demonstration of some Abilities was useful, as I may have skipped some choices without that demo.

But I am for item desciptions, even if I do not read them much (just starting to read again). Who doesn't like icing?

[Ariella]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DA2 had plenty of issues, but none of them seemed to come from deliberate changes from the general philosophy of Origins.

Yeah, Brent Knowles begs to differ.

Brent Knowles isn't here, is he, and the last I checked Brent Knowles isn't G-d either.

[tanerb123]

what he really says is , he will continue to dumb down the games inorder to bring more cash from kids and call of duty players because you veterans will keep buying everything bioware sell regardless of what anyway,

[Ariella]

tanerb123 wrote...

what he really says is , he will continue to dumb down the games inorder to bring more cash from kids and call of duty players because you veterans will keep buying everything bioware sell regardless of what anyway,

You know, the last guy who tried to put words like this in a developer's mouth got smacked around... alot. I hope you have a mouth protector.

[Elhanan]

tanerb123 wrote...

what he really says is , he will continue to dumb down the games inorder to bring more cash from kids and call of duty players because you veterans will keep buying everything bioware sell regardless of what anyway,

Receiver is busticated; transmission breaking up....

[Bryy_Miller]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DA2 had plenty of issues, but none of them seemed to come from deliberate changes from the general philosophy of Origins.

Yeah, Brent Knowles begs to differ.

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

[Atakuma]

I see Brent Knowles has become the patron saint of DA2 bashing.

[In Exile]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
You said you thought it was tedious. You said I was free to prefer otherwise.

Then you said that this segregation was a small part of DA2's general gameplay-story segregation problem.

Not really.  Not that it matters much, but since this point continues on: I said the segregation was small (the comparison to DA2's general segregation was simply to establish a point of reference), and more importantly, I said your claim it made no sense or was incoherent was an overstatement.

Of course there's no reason for Bioware not to innovate. I only addressed your point about the problem with thinking you can solve accesibility with just a tutorial, or that the problem is gameplay as opposed to the more theoretical elements of an RPG. 

You don't need to talk about ideal. But to use DA:O as an example, if you want to build a good tank, knowing what the **** aggro is, how to draw it, and how to keep it, would go a long way toward making an RPG make sense. 

You don't need to make the game easy (if you make it clear new players should play on casual/normal to learn the mechanics), but that lets you ease in lots of new players in a hardcore RPG.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded, or why you think it was a point I made?  Nor do I see what your DAO example has to do with the feasibility or appropriateness of tutorials.  If you think they can make these mechanics accessible via in-game designs, I don't see why you think a tutorial couldn't accomplish the same goal.  A tutorial could simply be gameplay segment, after all.

Elhanan wrote...
Personally, I found that hovering the cursor over the Attribute in DA2 made choices a lot better for general builds. And while I suggested with others that the tutorial should be early and optional, the actual demonstration of some Abilities was useful, as I may have skipped some choices without that demo.

But I am for item desciptions, even if I do not read them much (just starting to read again). Who doesn't like icing?

Yes, I agree.

[King Cousland]

Atakuma wrote...

I see Brent Knowles has become the patron saint of DA2 bashing.

Not really, but when a lead designer like Knowles leaves because he doesn't feel comfortable about the direction of a game, alarm bells start ringing.