295 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Your quotes are broken, but I was agreeing and commenting on how empty the point about expecting games to be "based in the 1990s" is.
The second part probably only works if you have seen the relevant Austin Powers film

haha, this is pretty embarassing but when I made that post I didn't bother to read your name and just assumed you were the same poster I was responding to. In effect, I thought you were huntress. Really sorry about that.

[willholt]

Il Divo wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Is that why Origins sold over 3 million units?

3 million players from the 90s, with 90s money. You cannot expect future projects to want 60 bucks from each of 3 million people based in the 90s.

What does that even mean?

I think Gotholhorakh was being slightly sarcastic and chidingly (but gently) making a valid point in the process... plus it made me laugh.

To hear some people talk you'd think that all those people who like games like DAO have vanished into some alternate universe... the one where players from the 90s go when they are of no more use to society. Apparently though they were allowed to briefly escape when Origins was released, cause they bought it in droves.

Sad to say, shortly afterwards they were all rounded up and sent back into exile... cause apparently they aren't around to sell that type of game to. Ergo, every developers current fascination for trying to attract a new kind of 'Action' fan/player.

Pity those poor POOR 90s' exiles.... sigh <_<

Modifié par willholt, 18 août 2011 - 08:20 .

[Il Divo]

willholt wrote...

I think Gotholhorakh was being slightly sarcastic and chidingly (but gently) making a valid point in the process... plus it made me laugh.

To hear some people talk you'd think that all those people who like games like DAO have vanished into some alternate universe... the one where players from the 90s go when they are of no more use to society. Apparently though they were allowed to briefly escape when Origins was released, cause they bought it in droves.

Sad to say, shortly afterwards they were all rounded up and sent back into exile... cause apparently they aren't around to sell that type of game to. Ergo, every developers current fascination for trying to attract a new kind of 'Action' fan/player.

Pity those poor POOR 90s' exiles.... sigh <_<

Yeah, I realized that all too late. It should serve me as a good lesson in patience/reading comprehension though.

[Salaya]

I respect that there are fans that like this new "vision" or direction or whatever name it has. But I'm not one of those, and there are many, as me, that think they are killing a good franchise. Visionaries are exceptions to the rule "If lots of people tell you that you are wrong, you probably are wrong". I understand the angry of those liking something that many people bashes and despises like trash, since it also happened with tons of other games; but they should understand that the people who does not like the game has reasons to do so, as the ones who like it has their own for liking it so much.

I don't think that making a good game has nothing to do with visions, or glorifications of your own ideas or past work. If the dev team and their leading director keep thinking they did a great job with DA2, believing that they have a "vision" to "evolve" the genre, the more likely outcome is the dissapearance of the franchise. And not because I don't like that direction, but for being not critical with their work.

But, of course, this is just my opinion

[Heather Cline]

I'm curious if Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning will allow you to pick what gender you want to be when you start a new game.

[Atakuma]

Heather Cline wrote...

I'm curious if Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning will allow you to pick what gender you want to be when you start a new game.

It will.

[Addai]

So, all games are going to be the same, play the same, and all play like action games. Woohoo. Hurrah for innovation.

[tmp7704]

Huntress wrote...

And yet every single RPG  been made is Action oriented.. Not true? Check them out and come back to me on that.

Yup, not true 1, 2

that's quite ancient  examples obv. but it's to point out that there is more width to the RPGs than just "kill foozles, collect loot". And some of these games indeed can go as far as to skip the foozle killing part completely, without becoming any less of an RPG.

Modifié par tmp7704, 18 août 2011 - 08:56 .

[John Epler]

tmp7704 wrote...

Huntress wrote...

And yet every single RPG  been made is Action oriented.. Not true? Check them out and come back to me on that.

Yup, not true 1, 2

that's quite ancient  examples obv. but it's to point out that there is more width to the RPGs than just "kill foozles, collect loot". And some of these games indeed can go as far as to skip the foozle killing part completely, without becoming any less of an RPG.

While I certainly don't disagree with you (I've always found the most intriguing P&P roleplaying sessions to be those that have either no combat or very little combat), I can't help but feel that you've opened the dread portal to the 'Realm of What Is An RPG?'

So I'm going to nip that in the bud and say 'No 'what is an RPG' discussion, please!'

[tmp7704]

JohnEpler wrote...

I can't help but feel that you've opened the dread portal to the 'Realm of What Is An RPG?'

wasn't my intention and yes, that's definitely a good call

[Cutlass Jack]

Foozles must die though. There is no other choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Foozles must die though. There is no other choice.

I much prefer RPG plots where there is no foozle to kill, or where killing the foozle is optional.

Don't worry, John.  This isn't about what is or is not an RPG.  This is about potential.

The vast majority of RPGs (and many games of other genres as well) feature a villain to be defeated.  And they can be great.  But there have also been great games without a foozle to kill, and that design has been explored far less often.  I think there's more room to do new and interesting things on the non-adversarial side of story-telling.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

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 at the end of the day DA2's "evolution" as you put it, still managed to sell far less copies than Origins. Gee wonder why? At any rate I was looking forward to Reckoning. But every new bit of info that's come out since E3, makes me less and less intererested.

To act like there isn't a large market for titles like Origins, or Baldur's Gate imo is flat out laughable.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 18 août 2011 - 09:25 .

[Hurbster]

Rolston's the guy responsible for 'streamlining' Morrowind and turning it into Oblivion, right ?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm certain that ML was intimately familiar with all the things you say, but they weren't his decisions and it was far too late for him to alter them.  As such you can't use DAO (PC version) as a fair representation of ML's work.  He didn't have enough time to put his imprint on it however familiar he might have been with it.

-Polaris

DAO wasn't initially done and completed on PC, then ported to 360 and PS3. It was a simultaneous launch across all three platforms. This isn't a port job, it's cross-platform development. As such, even if Laidlaw was only in charge of the 360 SKU (which I seriously doubt... the design staff at every company I've worked for has never been parceled out by platform. Engineers had platform-specific roles, Artists very rarely for UI work or retexturing on Wii, but never designers), he had to be working with the rest of the design team (including the other two leads, Brent Knowles and James Ohlen) constantly at the very minimum in order to keep everything as consistent as possible between the platforms.

So... saying he didn't have time to put his imprint on it would be a pretty bold bit of speculation. I've got several thousand hours of real life experience (including two years or so of accumulated crunch time) that say otherwise. Unless Bioware somehow runs their development studio in some crazy manner unlike any other studio ever... but I seriously doubt that.

Actually it was done on the PC and delayed a year because EA didn't want to market the game twice just an FYI.

[tmp7704]

The PC version was allegedly finished long months in advance, yes. Supposedly that being the main reason why BioWare was able to release the Toolset at the same time the game itself was launched.

[Tommy6860]

Heather Cline wrote...

I'm curious if Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning will allow you to pick what gender you want to be when you start a new game.

I would venture to say, "yes", because the game offer the ability to play four different races starting off. I would be dumbfoundedif the game doesn't allow gender selection while allowing multiple choices for a race.

[Ariella]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Icinix wrote...

"Narrative,Exploration, Combat and Advancement"

Yep, certainly.

But you forgot the fifth, most important thing for taking the base work of those four pillars and making it a good game.

Execution.

Hah, true. The game sucks if the GM is no good.

Considering there is no "GM" in a cRPG, kinda moot.

[Ariella]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You may have looked at what I wrote, but you don't really accept it. Each of those examples can be dismissed one by one. However, seeing all those together paints a picture. You can go on denying that of course. And you can of course keep on looking at Ken and Mike as visionaries based on what you view as great concepts. Those very same concepts to me point into another direction: Cost reduction and development time reduction.

Thing is, you have no viable proof. There's no physical evidene, no smoking gun proving that all the signs you claim were done for cost and time reductions were actually done for those reasons.

You need proof, and until you can point out viable evidence that contradicts what's been said, all you have is specualtion and you give me no real reason to accept it.

As for Ken and Mike's comments on design philosophy. I look at it this way. We're talking about two men in the business with two very different backggrounds.

Mike, it looks like, has been doing this since 2003, all with Bioware. He started with Hordes of the Underdark, did turns on Mass Effect and Jade Empire before coming Lead for the DA team.

Ken, prior to working on CRPGs worked on games like D&D, AD&D, Paranoia, and Warhammer Fantasy RPG. He also won an H.G Wells award for best RPG for Paranoia. He worked both on Morrowind and Oblivion as Lead Designer, and has about 25 years in the gaming industry.

These guys from from two very different starts in the market, but they came to the same basic conclusions: mechanics can be scary, and RPGs have a rep for being very mechanics heavy. But it doesn't have to be like that, especially for CRPGs.

I think Legacy says a lot about this philosophy, because it manages both good design and implementation.

When it comes down to it, it's the experience of the game, the fun, the joy the sorrow everything that you go through with the characters that matters most. That's where the fun is.

The long list of things that have been cut from the game cannot be denied. Sorry. Each one on that list can be dismissed with some kind of reasoning. That's not the point. The point is that all these things together paints a picture of cutting stuff from the game. Dumbing it down. Marketing calls that streamlining. Fine. I don't see a list of features that has been added to the game. To me the things that are supposed to be added to DA2 are rationalizations dreamed up by the marketing department to sell all the stuff that has been cut from the game.

There's a long list of things that were cut from DAO as well: commoner origin, the nemesis concept to name two, but I don't see you claiming that these things were cut in an attempt to swindle you out of money or dumn down the game.

Things get cut from games, it's part of the process. But you seem to believe that everything that was cut was cost saving, when we don't know that for a fact. Unless you lived with the development of DA2 as a part of the team, you aren't going to know the exact reasons for anything, if they worked or they didn't etc. None of us are.

[Morroian]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

I'm curious if Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning will allow you to pick what gender you want to be when you start a new game.

I would venture to say, "yes", because the game offer the ability to play four different races starting off. I would be dumbfoundedif the game doesn't allow gender selection while allowing multiple choices for a race.

I'm 99% sure it has gender selection.

[Ariella]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Heather Cline wrote...

I'm curious if Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning will allow you to pick what gender you want to be when you start a new game.

I would venture to say, "yes", because the game offer the ability to play four different races starting off. I would be dumbfoundedif the game doesn't allow gender selection while allowing multiple choices for a race.

Yes, it does. One of the demo vids from Pax east shows character creation. I was VERY careful to look for that prior to ordering my presale, as I was for DA2, and ME. The one thing I really do wish, that was brought up elsewhere and seems to finally be getting into the heads of the PR people is that letting people know there's a gender choice is a GOOD thing for your game.

[MerinTB]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I'm certain that ML was intimately familiar with all the things you say, but they weren't his decisions and it was far too late for him to alter them.  As such you can't use DAO (PC version) as a fair representation of ML's work.  He didn't have enough time to put his imprint on it however familiar he might have been with it.
-Polaris

DAO wasn't initially done and completed on PC, then ported to 360 and PS3. It was a simultaneous launch across all three platforms. This isn't a port job, it's cross-platform development. As such, even if Laidlaw was only in charge of the 360 SKU (which I seriously doubt... the design staff at every company I've worked for has never been parceled out by platform. Engineers had platform-specific roles, Artists very rarely for UI work or retexturing on Wii, but never designers), he had to be working with the rest of the design team (including the other two leads, Brent Knowles and James Ohlen) constantly at the very minimum in order to keep everything as consistent as possible between the platforms.

So... saying he didn't have time to put his imprint on it would be a pretty bold bit of speculation. I've got several thousand hours of real life experience (including two years or so of accumulated crunch time) that say otherwise. Unless Bioware somehow runs their development studio in some crazy manner unlike any other studio ever... but I seriously doubt that.

Actually it was done on the PC and delayed a year because EA didn't want to market the game twice just an FYI.

Dragon Age (even before it had the Origins part of the title) was always a PC game.  Then, for whatever reason, it's release of spring 2009 was bumped to fall 2009 AND it was announced that it would be on the PS3 and XBOX 360.

Dragon Age had been in the works for a LONG time.  Here's a good read for some history on it - http://www.1up.com/p...?pager.offset=0 - and to get what was being said at the time.

The cross-platform decision was only officially announced 2009, I believe.  I don't remember if there were any rumblings prior to 2009, but there may well have been.

[Ariella]

Hurbster wrote...

Rolston's the guy responsible for 'streamlining' Morrowind and turning it into Oblivion, right ?

Rolston was also the lead on Morriwind itself, and as I understand it Bethesda also responded to fan criticism from Morrowind when they developed Oblivion.

He's pretty much been a part of every facet of the RPG industry, except for LARP which is odd, but still it gives him some interesting insight.

[Addai]

Ariella wrote...
There's a long list of things that were cut from DAO as well: commoner origin, the nemesis concept to name two, but I don't see you claiming that these things were cut in an attempt to swindle you out of money or dumn down the game.

Because DAO was longer, with more content and far more detail?

[willholt]

To add to my (and others') previous comments about the now 'defunct' 90s' crowd...and also regarding all games 'becoming the same' due to the thirst for 'action' in games...

I really think it's kinda of foolish of developers to all jump into an already overcrowded market, purely because one or two within that overcrowded market are selling remarkably well.

Jumping into an already overcrowded market means you are just another fish in overcrowded pond. Potential buyers are as likely to buy a million other games, as they are to buy yours. You also have to work a lot harder to make your game stand out from the crowd... something very few titles achieve.

In an effort to give playing Origins a rest, I've bought a few other games this year. Out of these new purchases the only games that have kept my interest are the two Drakensang ones.

I've tried several so-called action RPGs, just to see if I could somehow get in to them. All of them bored me within a very short while of playing. I bought and tried Two Worlds 2, Risen, Titan Quest, and Alpha Protocol... There's a couple more, but they were so 'memorable' I can't even remember their name

I've seen several Action RPGs released this year, their similarity in gameplay only surpassed by the similar way they were all (not so) critically aclaimed. Dungeon Seige 3 & D&D Daggerdale to name a couple, both games derided for their boring repetitive and linear gameplay. Thankfully I didn't go near either of them.

My point is... Dungeon Seige 3 and Daggerdale are were all modern RPGs are going to end up, leaving behind a huge hole for 'Origins type' RPGs. I really hope someone has the vision to fill that gap and cater to those of us he prefer our  games with a bit more depth than a cinematic combat fest. There's a hell of a lot of us out there!