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).
(there's a lot of posts in this thread that I feel are annoying, so I'm going to post in the same spirit and manner).
There's a thing that is quite 'strange' with Ariella's post. The claim to "I hate combat". Yet DA2 gameplay is all about combat, and unrealistic, broken-out anime-combat at that. There isn't anything else. It's all DA2 is about. Someone is not being honest here.
The DA2 combat is easy to get through, I give that. But why play RPGs for easy combat? Even if you hate combat? Or is it the movies that Ariella appreciate so much? Eh? Or the speaking PC? Is it that which is so fabulous?
Me, I like combat. And I even like action. I play first person shooters, I play japanese console fighting games.
BUT I DON'T PLAY cRPGs FOR 'FUN' COMBAT! Combat in a RPG serves a different purpose for me. It provides the dread, the obstacle, the challenge and danger of the RPG story and -importantly- RPG decisions. If you just make it a path of console game levels you have to pass through on your railway journey, you take away that quality completely.
As some kind of game in itself, DA2 combat is 'fun', M.L. did partially do a good job with that. But I still think DA2 sucks horse manure through straw, and I still think DA2 combat is ridiculous and does a lot to ruin the game. Now, if they could somehow try to make it better anchored in some kind of realism, - make non-magic effects less fantastic and change the over the top animations, it would do a lot to improve the game. Get more RPG elements back in and change the styling&mood of the game to more serious, and we could have a winner in DA3. I'm not ruling it out.
I'd still have reservations about DA2 combat though. The isolation of combat from the rest of the game. In BG & IWD, the way combat plays out affects everything, including further combat encounters, so it's not only tactical but somewhat strategic as well. But apparently that is too complex gameplay for Bioware's current younger designers to cope with. Fair enough, so be it.
I still say tactical combat is more fun than action. And that BG, IWD has great combat gameplay. Much , much better than DA2. And that the PC version of DA:O, before the 1.01 patch, wasn't quite bad. Problem with DA:O is that blocking access didn't really work, breaking much of the tactical element. DA2 was an improvement in that regard. Unfortunately it doesn't make DA2 a winner. You only have to spam fantastic effects and 'combos' as early, fast and much as you can. That doesn't make up 'tactical' for me. Pace (less anime-hysteric), realism and variety are other things that make DA:O a winner by far.
And for Ariella: If you dislike it so much, feel so frustrated, whatever, just lower the difficulty.
I appreciate that sales demands lowering things to the standards of people who grew up with consoles
(my snobbish, elitist comment of the day). But neither making something 'action' nor making it play fast is evolution or moving things 'forward'. It may be moving things more to the taste of M.Laidlaw, confused marketing people and a vocal minority of players. But it's not advancing things or 'more modern'. Scrolling shooters, Mario and Donkey Kong platformers existed long before BG and tactic&strategy gems like X-COM. And yes, Mario is a more successful franchise than BG. But go off and make your dam console platformer then, don't try to change a different game and a different genre into it.
Let's cut this "Oohho hoo, cool!"&"Awesome" nonsens of EA-marketings "squeeling nine years olds" and make a 18+ game that takes itself serious.
Ken Rolsten's PR inteview is all about projecting EA-marketings beliefs. EA marketing department is always wrong. They have always been wrong and they will always be wrong. Don't trust them. Remember Spore.
Modifié par bEVEsthda, 18 août 2011 - 11:28 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
