322 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

simfamSP wrote...

Action doesn't define the RPG genre. When you have Action RPG they could easily be succesful in both sides. It doesn't mean one has to be the weaker element than the other. To me BG2 was an Action RPG because you had loads of action. Action doesn't neccesarily mean mindless button mashing *cough* Oblivion *cough*

There is a lot of confusion about the term "action rpg" and it seems to me that everyone uses it in different ways. For me, the "action RPG" label means basically three things a) The gameplay focuses on combat Combat is in real time Combat is not stat/rule based but it relies upon the skills of the player. 

Then, if my definition is correct, BG2 is a classic CRPG with many action elements. And very interestingly: TW2 is a pure action RPG while DA2 has still a lot of classic RPG features.

[FedericoV]

simfamSP wrote...

But I think EA knows that they can't do the same for DA3 or any other Dragon age games if they wish to keep it's success flowing. They might be heartless Bastards. But they aren't stupid.

They are not stupid, off course. They cannot rush another money grabber and probably they won't. Having said that, I don't want to seem repetitive but my question is simple and you never replied to it (or I misread your reply and in case I apologize): do they know what to do with DA:O's success? Are them (Bioware and EA) really interested in the reason of the sucess of the first game compared to the fiasco of the second one? Are they willing to sacrifice their vision of that new "interactive storytelling" genre they keep talking about to develop a game that really answers the feedback of the fans who did not liked DA2?

I suspect that the answer is no and you reasonably express the point many times in that thread: there is no going back from the DA2 formula. In that sense, honestly, I think that all the effort in terms of feedback are pointless and that they will even backleash to them when the reality of the game will destroy the illusion of being listened to that they have been trying to build in the last months.

[fchopin]

FedericoV wrote...

There is a lot of confusion about the term "action rpg" and it seems to me that everyone uses it in different ways. For me, the "action RPG" label means basically three things a) The gameplay focuses on combat Combat is in real time Combat is not stat/rule based but it relies upon the skills of the player. 

Then, if my definition is correct, BG2 is a classic CRPG with many action elements. And very interestingly: TW2 is a pure action RPG while DA2 has still a lot of classic RPG features.

TW2's combat is action oriented but the rest of the game is pure rpg, i myself have no problem with action based combat, some of my favourite rpg games do have action based combat.
 
DA2 combat is classic style combat but the rest of the game has very little rpg elements, for example no options or choices plot relating.

[FedericoV]

fchopin wrote...

TW2's combat is action oriented but the rest of the game is pure rpg, i myself have no problem with action based combat, some of my favourite rpg games do have action based combat.
 
DA2 combat is classic style combat but the rest of the game has very little rpg elements, for example no options or choices plot relating.

Then we agree and it's exactly my point. TW2 and DA2 are both action RPGs. TW2 because of its pure actiony gameplay. DA2 because of its lack of significant interaction with the main plot. Since gameplay is more significant to define the genre of a game (even in Heavy Rain you can interact with the main plot but that's not make it an RPG) DA2 is closer to the classic RPG genre than TW2.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 septembre 2011 - 03:21 .

[ScotGaymer]

simfamSP wrote...


But is there need for dramatic changes in the DA2 formula?

All of it's faults where minor, but they stood out so much that it became stupid. DA2 in many ways is VERY similar to Origins. It is, just throw your hate away for a sec and look.

The combat is still party based
The gameplay is identical
The dialouge system is still the same, with or without the wheel

It just needs less of what made is bad and that, tbh, wasn't all that much. If your going for plot and story, well the implementation (as I've said to MorrigansLove) was horrid due to the 18month limit.

A lot of people write fan fic, and the people who write novels will know that it takes way more than 18 months to make something great.

And the 'writers here are professional' arguement is invalid because many professionals have a hard time on making their work presentable.

Did you know Aragorn was supposed to be a Hobbit with wooden feet? See how much Tolkien changed it?

I agree sort of.

DA2 has some grievous errors that should never have made it past QA; and its flaws are entirely caused by the much too short development cycle.

I liked DA2 for the most part its flaws werent massively annoying, except for the repeated maps, dungeons, and landscapes started to irritate me massively by the end of Act 2 in my first playthru. That sort of thing doesnt usually bother me till my near the end of my 2nd playthru or the beginning of my third.

What defeated my determination to love this game was the ending. For me the ending basically metaphorically slapped me in the face and in Nelson from the Simpsons voice went "Haw Haw! Your choices meant nothing! Playing this game was pointless!"
Because the ending renders EVERYTHING that Hawke did during the course of the game totally and completely moot; the whole situation would have happened without him around and the chantry wouldnt have had their scapegoat for it. It is very annoying and disheartening.

[fchopin]

FedericoV wrote...

Then we agree and it's exactly my point. TW2 and DA2 are both action RPGs. TW2 because of its pure actiony gameplay. DA2 because of its lack of significant interaction with the main plot. Since gameplay is more significant to define the genre of a game (even in Heavy Rain you can interact with the main plot but that's not make it an RPG) DA2 is closer to the classic RPG genre than TW2.

No the opposite, TW2 is the real rpg because you can play the game as an rpg.
DA2 only gives the illusion of an rpg as any way you play the game is pointless.
Hawke goes around kirkwall watching events happening and never takes part, Hawke is a bystander, not an rpg character player.
 
Combat does not make the game an rpg, only character interactions and character options and choices makes the game an rpg.

[fchopin]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
Could someone confirm for me which elements of DA2 are being ‘streamlined’ away as part of this ‘best of both’ approach?

Anyone?

All we know is they are going the DA2 way and will probably add a few options form DAO.
 
You will have to wait for a developer to answer your question.

[Marionetten]

More likely it's just going to come across as halfhearted pandering with little genuine effort behind it. Yrkoon is right in that BioWare needs to start defining their vision and sticking to it. They aren't going to be able to compromise this and I think they need to realize that. After The Witcher 2 new genre standards have been set and BioWare isn't going to be able to get by on name alone. The genre will move with or without them and thinking anything else is pure arrogance.

[FedericoV]

fchopin wrote...

Combat does not make the game an rpg, only character interactions and character options and choices makes the game an rpg.

So, Heavy Rain and Grand Theft Auto IV are RPGs: they have branching storylines, you have options and your choices change the course of the plot. Just to say, choice and consequences are really important but they are not all to define the genre of a game. Considering that the personality of Geralt is defined pretty clearly and that the focus of the gameplay is on combat, it's really hard to consider TW2 a classic RPG. It's a pure action RPG, just like Mass Effect 2. That's not diminishing its qualities to the least, it's just to categorize it properly.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 septembre 2011 - 05:26 .

[Atakuma]

Marionetten wrote...

More likely it's just going to come across as halfhearted pandering with little genuine effort behind it. Yrkoon is right in that BioWare needs to start defining their vision and sticking to it. They aren't going to be able to compromise this and I think they need to realize that. After The Witcher 2 new genre standards have been set and BioWare isn't going to be able to get by on name alone. The genre will move with or without them and thinking anything else is pure arrogance.

Bioware has a clear vision, they are going to make the game they want to make. If you think they are going to do anything other than an improved DA2, then you are reading too much into PR speak.

[FedericoV]

Atakuma wrote...
Bioware has a clear vision, they are going to make the game they want to make. If you think they are going to do anything other than an improved DA2, then you are reading too much into PR speak.

Is the vision clear? I mean, generally speaking, they seems to know very well where they want to bring the DA franchise. But if we look at the minutiae of game design they seem confused as hell about each feature. They want the combat to be tactical and actiony, strategic and frantic. They want party based gameplay, but they want you to be able to play the game as a single player hack and slash if you want to. They want the joinable npcs to have an iconic look and they want them to be customizable. They want an inventory, but they do not want it to become a chore. They want a set voiced charachter, but they want you to customize it. They want you to choose but they want you to tell their story without problem of canon. They want grey morality and important moral themes surrounded by orge of battles, blood and bodies exploding in a juvenile way. And I could go on, and on and on. So, it's seem to me, that DA2 design is everything but clear, it's the definition of confusion and lack of coherent vision.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[fchopin]

FedericoV wrote...

So, Heavy Rain and Grand Theft Auto IV are RPGs:

Haven't played the games and have no plans in buying them so i can't tell you if they are rpg's.
 
As i said before combat does not make an rpg, combat is only one of the rpg elements in rpg's.
 
You can make an rpg game without combat and i predict that this will be done in the next few years.

[In Exile]

FedericoV wrote...
There is a lot of confusion about the term "action rpg" and it seems to me that everyone uses it in different ways. For me, the "action RPG" label means basically three things a) The gameplay focuses on combat Combat is in real time Combat is not stat/rule based but it relies upon the skills of the player. 

Then, if my definition is correct, BG2 is a classic CRPG with many action elements. And very interestingly: TW2 is a pure action RPG while DA2 has still a lot of classic RPG features.

Just as an aside, for the record, apparently Bioware considers quantity of combat to = action RPG, and they called DA:O an action RPG. I will look for a link. 

[In Exile]

FedericoV wrote...
do they know what to do with DA:O's success?

I think a better question is: could DA:O's success ever be replicated? 

[Atakuma]

FedericoV wrote...

Is the vision clear? I mean, generally speaking, they seems to know very well where they want to bring the DA franchise. But if we look at the minutiae of game design they seem confused as hell about each feature. They want the combat to be tactical and actiony, strategic and frantic. They want party based gameplay, but they want you to be able to play the game as a single player hack and slash if you want to. They want the joinable npcs to have an iconic look and they want them to be customizable. They want an inventory, but they do not want it to become a chore. They want a set voiced charachter, but they want you to customize it. They want you to choose but they want you to tell their story without problem of canon. They want grey morality and important moral themes surrounded by orge of battles, blood and bodies exploding in a juvenile way. And I could go on, and on and on. So, it's seem to me, that DA2 design is everything but clear, it's the definition of confusion and lack of coherent vision.

That was my point, they know what they want to do. I chalk up the seeming lack of coherency to poor implementation due to time and or budgetary restraints (except for the over the top gameplay presentation, that needs to be toned down).

[FedericoV]

fchopin wrote...

Haven't played the games and have no plans in buying them so i can't tell you if they are rpg's.

Then trust me, they're not but they have branchig storylines and interaction with the plot with plenty of options and consequences in case of Heavy Rain. Just to say that while option are important they are just an element of the genre. Baldur's Gate 1 has a linear main storyline that you cannot change in any way, but it's an pure, classic, hardcore RPG.

 

As i said before combat does not make an rpg, combat is only one of the rpg elements in rpg's.
You can make an rpg game without combat and i predict that this will be done in the next few years.

But TW2 is not that game. It is a game wich content is largely based on combat. Is 70% a reasonable guess? So, please, tell me, how you can artifically separate its pure action combat gameplay, that is the large majority of its content, from the branching rpgish interaction with the storyline to define its genre?

Btw, there have been allready games that you could complete diplomatically, like Arcanuum or Fallout 1. They were all stat based and not action RPG...

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:45 .

[FedericoV]

In Exile wrote...

Just as an aside, for the record, apparently Bioware considers quantity of combat to = action RPG, and they called DA:O an action RPG. I will look for a link. 

Well, considering that the "action" brand helps selling games I'm not surprised that they have labelled it that way... but imho DA:O falls very close to BG2 in terms of genre: a classic RPG with many action element (focus on combat and real time combat with pause function).

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:37 .

[seraphymon]

In Exile wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
do they know what to do with DA:O's success?

I think a better question is: could DA:O's success ever be replicated? 

Even though ML said hell be damned if he cant produce a DA game better than Origins or DA2. However IMO with the visions they have and the direction they seem to want to go. No they will not.

[FedericoV]

Atakuma wrote...

That was my point, they know what they want to do. I chalk up the seeming lack of coherency to poor implementation due to time and or budgetary restraints (except for the over the top gameplay presentation, that needs to be toned down).

And my point is that it's not that usefull to know what to do in very general terms if you are confused about each pratical application of your generic idea. A game is made by its pratical feature and not by its general "mission statement". And time or budget restraints are not excuses since every dev team have a budget and a deadline (except the people working for Blizzard!). Look, months after DA2 publication, with tons of feedback and discussion and arguments and interviews they presented us their plan for inventory and look of joinable NPCs: and they told us that they want us to customize the joinable npcs but that they even want a set iconic look .

A clear vision would be something like:

- Iconic look: we're sorry but we value the visuals more than gameplay and we don't want you to play dress up, so your party members will choose what to wear and when. No party inventory. Suck it up princess . You can make gifts to joinable NPCs or give advice but the choice of what to wear and when is basically theirs.

- Full customization: DA:O's system.

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:51 .

[fchopin]

FedericoV wrote...


But TW2 is not that game. It is a game wich content is largely based on combat.

TW2 is the game as it's one of the best rpg's ever made and whether you consider action combat to be inferior or not does not make it so.
The game has combat but that is not the reason why it's good, the options and choices are what has made it one of the best imo.