295 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

I just watched part of the Ken Rolsten interview at Bioware Pulse TV.

He talked about the four things that an RPG needs Narrative,Exploration, Combat and Advancement. He also comments that cRPGs are for the most part still trapped in their table top/PC conventions so the game slows down... Ken also commented how glad he was to have Todd McFarlan on board because of the latter's experience with combat threatre which allowed them to borrow combat conventions from action games. Ken says it's still easy to play KoA:R like an RPG, but you might just find yourself seduced by some of the new action conventions that have slipped in.

Now, as I was listening to this:

http://www.bioware.com/biowaretv

I couldn't help but hear the echos of another game developer we all know who's been saying the same thing about HIS game for the last year. The irony is that in repsonse to Ken's comments on the KoA boards they're thrilled, where here we got: "Oh my God, Bioware is betraying its base."

Looks like Mike may have had it right after all, and that the RPG genre is in for another evolution.

@Mike Laidlaw: I know you've put up with a lot of crud over all this, but keep in mind, a true visionary is rarely recognized in his own time <G>. though you may have to suffer that less than most visionaries.

[nitefyre410]

This  brings nothing but a smile to my  face,   a very  large smile indeed.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 17 août 2011 - 11:05 .

[Hurbster]

Fair enough, but KoA:R is a new IP, not a sequel on the back of a very successful and well-liked original.

[Ariella]

Hurbster wrote...

Fair enough, but KoA:R is a new IP, not a sequel on the back of a very successful and well-liked original.

Dragon Age is also still a new IP, so I don't see where that's a huge deal. Plus it's not like KoA:R doesn't have any coat-tails to ride either with names like Rolsten, Salvatore, and McFarlan on the box.

It doesn't change the fact that RPGs have to change with the times, and take advantage of the technology and the tools that can keep them alive as a viable genre. Honestly, I think the only problem Bioware PR had was the fact they named names, so when people heard CoD, that's what got caught in their heads, not the point that was trying to be made.

[Uzzy]

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

[Ariella]

Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an evolution. The word has no real value based in it's denotation.

But like everything else, games have to adapt to current market situations. We saw it once with BG, and when others tried to pull back to  Gold Box type levels, they got trashed (Pool of Radiance: Shadows of Myth Drannor comes to mind) When the move was made from 2D to 3D graphics, certain games got pummelled for not making the move: ToEE again, is a good example of that RPG genre.

Things change, you don't have to like them, but there is change. However, you might want to consider the mindset. BG really wasn't that slow paced. Yes, you could pause, but it was real time, like now. I don't see much difference in that except the fact that the graphics are different, and the response time from the characters is better now. Why wouldn't anyone want their character to respond to commands immediately rather than there being a pause in the flow of combat?

Now, I hate combat, I've hated it since Table Top. I found it to be one of those things to be endured, not enjoyed, and if anything pulled me out of a game, it was the combat. This was true in Table Top, Larp, and CRPGs... Until DA2. Dragon Age 2's combat system felt like a natural extention of the game, not something to be endured. It was quick, had numberous options at the ready that didn't slow the pace, and it did what I wanted with a minimum of fuss. Nice and painless (and when I say painless I mean, I wasn't sitting there eithe bored or frustrated with the combat).

[Morroian]

Ariella wrote...

Looks like Mike may have had it right after all, and that the RPG genre is in for another evolution. 

@Mike Laidlaw: I know you've put up with a lot of crud over all this, but keep in mind, a true visionary is rarely recognized in his own time <G>. though you may have to suffer that less than most visionaries.

 Personally I'm getting quite excited for Reckoning, an open world game with intensive combat. The only way it could be better is if it was party based.

Modifié par Morroian, 18 août 2011 - 12:38 .

[Kileyan]

I'm all for actiony reflex based button mashing being in an RPG. I just don't think that interview is proof that every rpg in the future has to be that way.

[Atakuma]

Laidlaw and Rolsten have a similar viewpoint... so what?

Modifié par Atakuma, 17 août 2011 - 11:48 .

[Gunderic]

Mike Laidlaw... a visionary?

[Ariella]

Atakuma wrote...

Laidlaw and Rolsten have a similar viewpoint... so what?

Just that if one were to go over to the KoA:R forums and read the posts on what Rolsten said, there's no wailing or nashing of teeth about the fact that bits are being taken from actions games. The people there are very excited about the game.

I think that says something when a rather anticipated RPG, which has some rather big names on the box, seems to follow a similar design philophy to what Mike and the DA team did with DA2

[Ariella]

Morroian wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Looks like Mike may have had it right after all, and that the RPG genre is in for another evolution. 

@Mike Laidlaw: I know you've put up with a lot of crud over all this, but keep in mind, a true visionary is rarely recognized in his own time <G>. though you may have to suffer that less than most visionaries.

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]


Personally I'm getting quite excited for Reckoning, an open world game with intensive combat. The only way it could be better is if it was party based.

Reckoning is my stop gate game, the one I'm going to kick butt on until Bioware comes out with new stuff. Which gives me less than a month to finish it as ME3 comes out on the 9th of March, but I think between it and the potenial for more DA2 based DLC, I should have my fantasy fix til they're ready for DA3. I hope.

[billy the squid]

Ariella wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

...

Dragon Age 2's combat system felt like a natural extention of the game, not something to be endured. It was quick, had numberous options at the ready that didn't slow the pace, and it did what I wanted with a minimum of fuss. Nice and painless (and when I say painless I mean, I wasn't sitting there eithe bored or frustrated with the combat).

DA2's combat was possibly one of the most irritating aspects of the game, true the shuffling and the pathing issues were removed, yet it was replaced with a hyperactive overdone style. Rather than fixing the more sluggish combat of DAO. Not to mention the myriad of other problems associated with combat. compounded by the sheer quantity thrown at the player, it seems that they tried to pad the game by pushing in more combat to make up for the lack of content.

As to issues of change, please explain how FPS and TPS have not changed significantly in years, they are, at their core, still the same as they were years ago, why? Because they are popular. People buy it, so it remains similar to its predecessors.

It is not an issue of stagnation, it is the desire to appeal to a broader market and increase revenue thus the push to make RPGs more cinematic and straight forward to appeal to the casual market. DAO had its established market, the IP impact was succesful, DA2 did not introduce a new IP it tried to change its base assuming the original segment would still buy it or it underestimated who was its competition and would new consumers buy the product. This game is different, it is a new IP, it doesn't have the associated expectation of a sequal. There is a higher risk, even if some people on the board are excited, that it will not perform once released, that is the risk of all new IPs.

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2011 - 12:14 .

[Atakuma]

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Laidlaw and Rolsten have a similar viewpoint... so what?

Just that if one were to go over to the KoA:R forums and read the posts on what Rolsten said, there's no wailing or nashing of teeth about the fact that bits are being taken from actions games. The people there are very excited about the game.

I think that says something when a rather anticipated RPG, which has some rather big names on the box, seems to follow a similar design philophy to what Mike and the DA team did with DA2

No it doesn't, because unlike DA2, Amalur isn't a sequel, so people don't have built in expectations.

[Morty Smith]

Ariella wrote...

Looks like Mike may have had it right after all, and that the RPG genre is in for another evolution.

Yes. The Mass-Effectolution. It was done in 2007. What did DA2 bring to the table that neither Mass-Effect nor Dragon Age Origins did?

[willholt]

Sounds like another potentially good game reduced to...

combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, cutscene, cutscene, cutscene... then player gets to actually do something different for 10 seconds... rinse and repeat for 60 game hours.

Damn... that's ANOTHER game of my Amazon wishlist!

[Ariella]

billy the squid wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

...

Dragon Age 2's combat system felt like a natural extention of the game, not something to be endured. It was quick, had numberous options at the ready that didn't slow the pace, and it did what I wanted with a minimum of fuss. Nice and painless (and when I say painless I mean, I wasn't sitting there eithe bored or frustrated with the combat).

DA2's combat was possibly one of the most irritating aspects of the game, true the shuffling and the pathing issues were removed, yet it was replaced with a hyperactive overdone style. Rather than fixing the more sluggish combat of DAO. Not to mention the myriad of other problems associated with combat. compounded by the sheer quantity thrown at the player, it seems that they tried to pad the game by pushing in more combat to make up for the lack of content.

As to issues of change, please explain how FPS and TPS have not changed significantly in years, they are, at their core, still the same as they were years ago, why? Because they are popular. People buy it, so it remains similar to its predecessors.

It is not an issue of stagnation, it is the desire to appeal to a broader market and increase revenue thus the push to make RPGs more cinematic and straight forward to appeal to the casual market. DAO had its established market, the IP impact was succesful, DA2 did not introduce a new IP it tried to change its base assuming the original segment would still buy it or it underestimated who was its competition and would new consumers buy the product.

People toss around the word "casual" like it's a perjoritive when it isn't.

FPS and TPS have become much more story based. The original Doom had as much story as a fortune cookie, but look at the shooter genre now. Identifiable characters with personality, lore... The basic mechanic of it being a combat sim is the same, but there's more depth than there was back when Doom hit the scene.

Appealing to a broader market is GOOD, it allows for more money to come into RPG developers and in turn they put out more RPGs. That's basic economics. The fact that RPGs are mechanics heavy, and that tends to turn off certain segments of gamers, isn't good in a world where the market for luxury items has shrunk. That and I've been a fan of rule 0: if the mechanic doesn't work toss it out or to put it another way: the r in RPG stands for playing a role, not rolling the dice.

Combat in DA2 was so much better than DAO, I don't see how you can compare them, or what was so wrong with the animation. It's a 3D game, high action animation makes sense. Yes, this isn't part of what was in BG, but they couldn't DO this in BG either because of the limitations. Part of Dragon Age was to get out from under the rules heavy table top design of a D&D system. Bioware was still heavily tied to mechanics in DAO, but in DA2 finally broke from having certain mechanics for the sake of being classified as an RPG. It also broke out of the old Bioware mold as well (being an avatar of a great political/social/religious/militarfy group that has to save the world). It did a lot of things that weren't usual faire for the company, and while the game could have done with more time, what we got was still pretty good.

[Ariella]

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Laidlaw and Rolsten have a similar viewpoint... so what?

Just that if one were to go over to the KoA:R forums and read the posts on what Rolsten said, there's no wailing or nashing of teeth about the fact that bits are being taken from actions games. The people there are very excited about the game.

I think that says something when a rather anticipated RPG, which has some rather big names on the box, seems to follow a similar design philophy to what Mike and the DA team did with DA2

No it doesn't, because unlike DA2, Amalur isn't a sequel, so people don't have built in expectations.

REally? I'd think when one throws names like RA Salvatore around there are going to be expections. I remember the D&D cRPG Demon Stone that he wrote. The game had huge expectations, and dropped like a stone. The names attached ARE going to build an expectation. Just like attaching the name Bioware to anything builds a certain expectation. Never underestimate the power of name recognition.

[nitefyre410]

willholt wrote...

Sounds like another potentially good game reduced to...

combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, cutscene, cutscene, cutscene... then player gets to actually do something different for 10 seconds... rinse and repeat for 60 game hours.

Damn... that's ANOTHER game of my Amazon wishlist!

 

You may like something along the lines of La Nior - if have a console to play it on.


as for  KoA: R  yes same for me ... oh my poor wallet in the near future is going to hurting... badly.

[AngryFrozenWater]

This is my take on it and most likely the OP does not agree - which is fine by me. The problem with Mr Laidlaw's approach is that there isn't much room for CRPGs to merge with action games and/or streamline RPG features to reach a new market. Those games are already there: You either move into the H&S territory with a great story or the Adventures which should have a great story anyway. All that we have seen in DA2 is not innovation at all. It's all about creating the game as fast as possible for the lowest development cost. All the innovations there are an indirect result of that approach. Those rationalizations are just sold by the marketing department as innovations. If Mr Laidlaw is supposed to be a visionary than he might be one for the marketing department. In the end his streamlining and innovations just boil down to redefinitions for "dumbing down" and "cost reduction".

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 août 2011 - 12:35 .

[Uzzy]

Ariella wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an evolution. The word has no real value based in it's denotation.

But like everything else, games have to adapt to current market situations. We saw it once with BG, and when others tried to pull back to  Gold Box type levels, they got trashed (Pool of Radiance: Shadows of Myth Drannor comes to mind) When the move was made from 2D to 3D graphics, certain games got pummelled for not making the move: ToEE again, is a good example of that RPG genre.

Things change, you don't have to like them, but there is change. However, you might want to consider the mindset. BG really wasn't that slow paced. Yes, you could pause, but it was real time, like now. I don't see much difference in that except the fact that the graphics are different, and the response time from the characters is better now. Why wouldn't anyone want their character to respond to commands immediately rather than there being a pause in the flow of combat?

Now, I hate combat, I've hated it since Table Top. I found it to be one of those things to be endured, not enjoyed, and if anything pulled me out of a game, it was the combat. This was true in Table Top, Larp, and CRPGs... Until DA2. Dragon Age 2's combat system felt like a natural extention of the game, not something to be endured. It was quick, had numberous options at the ready that didn't slow the pace, and it did what I wanted with a minimum of fuss. Nice and painless (and when I say painless I mean, I wasn't sitting there eithe bored or frustrated with the combat).

And just because you like it, it doesn't make it an evolution. DA2's combat system for me was one of the most soul destroying experiences I've ever had to endure, and about half way through chapter 1 I turned the difficulty down to casual just so I could get through it as quickly as possible and try and enjoy the storyline.

As for why anyone would want a pause in the flow of combat, it's so you have time to think and consider the state of play, consider options and then launch your attacks. This appeals to me.

Your point about market conditions would have a bigger impact if DA:O hadn't sold so well, proving there's a market for the older style of RPG still out there.

Now, onto your wider point. Firstly, I'd like to say that I love action games. I've played endless Devil May Cry style games, and found Bayonetta to be as close to perfection as is feasible in a game. I also enjoy Action RPG's a great deal, the latest being Dungeon Siege 3, which I quite enjoyed and didn't regret spending money on. But I don't want every RPG to be an Action RPG. You end up with a saturated market with little variation and interest, just look at the FPS market thanks to the success of CoD. DA:O offered something different, and I really appreciated that. Seeing DA2 going further down the Action RPG route due to 'the need to adapt to changing markets' saddened me. You might see it as evolution, but I consider it going down a route that's already filled by countless other games, often ones that do it better (like a certain Mr Witcher).

[Ariella]

Kroitz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Looks like Mike may have had it right after all, and that the RPG genre is in for another evolution.

Yes. The Mass-Effectolution. It was done in 2007. What did DA2 bring to the table that neither Mass-Effect nor Dragon Age Origins did?

It wasn't about saving the world from the ultimate evil, and the PC was a free agent, not an avatar for the Spectres/Grey Wardens/Jedi/ Dragon Slayers-Dragon Knights/Children of Bhaal/Spirit Monks nor is she some chosen one.

If anything, I'd say the story of DA2 has more in common with Mask of the Betrayer and KotOR 2 than it does with DAO/Mass Effect  etc.

And yes, it's an evolution, just we hadn't really seen it hit the bedrock of the genre-fantasy, until now.

It was more acceptable in ME due to the fact that ME from the beginning was based partially on shooter mechanics, so many consider it a hybrid. We're talking about the foundational genre now, and there's going to be understandable backlash.

[Morroian]

billy the squid wrote...

As to issues of change, please explain how FPS and TPS have not changed significantly in years, they are, at their core, still the same as they were years ago,

Modern FPSs are still the same as Doom? 

Modifié par Morroian, 18 août 2011 - 12:48 .

[Brockololly]

Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

Yup.

I enjoy plenty of action games and shooters but sometimes I actually want to play a slower, more methodical party based tactical RPG. When every RPG ends up looking and playing exactly the same, thats not interesting.

[Tommy6860]

I say I totally disagree with KoA thinking and ML's too. We don't have to make every RPG out there now like DA2, as you may as well call them by another genre. Taking away player agency, so other can have more action is fine, but don't make it a blanket case for every RPG that comes along. Origins proved it can play with D&D TP rules and still be a great game and its sales proved that, DA2 was just a rushed sequel not resembling anything to Origins in style and gameplay, so it could make quicker profits while adding little innovation.

I am on the fence with Reckoning because DA2 still is fresh as a bad experience for me.