261 réponses à ce sujet

[Quething]

tmp7704 wrote...

I'd say having your character actually die and become thus unable to appear in followup installments of the game goes quite beyond 'roleplaying consequences' and straight into mechanics territory, on level considerably more drastic than missing out on a piece of equipment...

(granted, it's a decision for which the players ultimately got a get ouf of jail card in said followup, but that's not something known to them at the point they'd normally make such decision i.e. before Awakening shipped)

"Not being able to play this character in future content" isn't a foreseeable consequence of "this character dies"?

(I mean, obviously, in a pre-Leliana/Anders world, which is where we lived when players were first making that decision.)

Besides, that's not a mechanical consequence at all. Not having your Warden around in further story bits when you aren't playing the Warden anyway... it's the difference between Alistair being dead and Alistair being a wandering drunk. "What name is displayed over the head of my PC"? That's pure story. The only actual mechanical consequence of killing the Warden is, arguably, that a playthrough with the Orlesian Warden won't have The Rose's Thorn or the Fade stat boosts or extra talents from tomes etc etc. That one, I'll give you (though apart from the Harvester, the game is so easy through the DLC you'd never know the difference anyway).

Modifié par Quething, 02 octobre 2011 - 04:01 .

[Joy Divison]

Filament wrote...

We're at an impasse...

You are at an impasse because you are trying to convince him two different systems are the same.

[Sepewrath]

tmp7704 wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

You look at combat in a game like Dark Souls and I think that would work well for the DA series.

Small caveat: such active gameplay becomes rather problematic when you manage multiple characters rather than one. Which happens to be DA cornerstone.

RPG's aren't nearly popular as they use to be.

Recent RPGs like DAO and Fallout 3 sold 3-4 million units each, iirc. What titles in the past sold so much better than that, to support this belief?

(looking numbers up, F3 was ~4.7 million which happen to be just couple hundred thousands short of sales of all releases of various installments of Baldur's Gate combined)

Are you keeping in mind the massive growth of the gaming audience from back in the days to the current time? Are you keeping mind that Fallout 3 looks like a FPS, much to the chagrin of the classic FO audience? This is not something that can be denied so you can try to counter a point. Everyone knows that the RPG genre is not what it use to be, same as the fighting genre, platformers that don't have Mario on the cover.

In fact what your saying only supports my point, the modern take on the Fallout franchise is why it sold so well, What you think all 4 million people who bought that game, spent 2yrs on forums finding out how much of an RPG it was? Or do you think they saw bullets flying in slow motion, exploding peoples heads and then went out and bought it? Why don't you compare the sells of a modern Fallout series to Dragon Age and see the difference. I'm going to go out on the limb and say that Skyrim will outsell will Dragon Age as well.

This series is no different from Fallout, when  I was looking to buy Origins, I was looking around online to see what people thought. Not a lot of kind words out there, this series needs to move forward and controlling more than one person is no excuse for it not to. That is a lame excuse.

[stwu]

Dragon Age 2 sucked because they made a game that was to dumb for real rpg gamers and to boring for action gamers. While there are some thing I enjoyed about it as a whole it was very dissapointing. If I knew ahead of time what they had in mind they wouldn't have got my SE pre-order. I won't make the same mistake for DA3. Thankfully the Mass Effect team seems to doing a good job on keeping the series true but I'm still wary.

[stwu]

tariq071 wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

"The number of the reviews was... very polarized, awesomely so. Lots of 90+ reviews, we also got fans that I think in some cases who were expecting more Dragon Age: Origins

I'm getting really tired of seeing them claim this over and over. The faults in the game have nothing to do with being 'not DAO'. I hope someone there recognises that, even if they can't come oout and say it.

It's called self persuasion, since they really have nowhere else to go for approval of what they did(exception being some parts of this forum)..For me it's very juvenile and immature, but i am not suprised of it seeing from whome is comming from.So you have to lean on revivews that you have payed to be positive, and delusionaly blame some "misterious wolrdwide conspiracy " for negatives.

In reality, only way that they are going to do something different then sad and paultry DA II is if certain people finaly recognize that they are only good in writting 5 cent novels like Twilight and leave , and that is not going to happen since they are self proclaimed geniouses/messiahs and their work is peak of western civilization (laughable).

One thing that will maybe sober them up is bad sales of next game , which will not have DAO  to lean on for sales, but i higly doubt that since they are to self absorbed.

In any case i really don't care , considering that i have no intention on buying DA3 unless i am sure that has no more then 10% of DA II gimmicks.ME3 will be my last BW game(yes i have all of their games), and that's only because i want to have whole trilogy,and not because i have have confidence in them anymore.At least not until some people disssaper from BW.

I completely agree tariq071 though I hate it when people of the same profession trash each other.What makes them think their drivel is so superior? I'll never understand, maybe it's because I like Twilight.

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

Perhaps you don't see it because you look at it from 'wrong' perspective -- as being able to put your character at disadvantage as result of taken choice isn't "punishing people for roleplaying" but simply roleplaying, period. The difficulty obtained as result of taken action can be seen as a gain from perspective of person shaping personalized story for their character, not "punishment".

But no matter what you do, from the story's point of view you're still treated as having hurried to the rescue no matter what you did.  The only difference is whether you've got the equipment or not. 

And yes, it's not different from "cake or death" choice from such RP point of view. Or in case of DAO, "dark ritual or ultimate sacrifice".

There are in character story consequences to either choosing Dark Ritual or Ultimate Sacrifice.  Whereas there's no acknowledgement at all of any choice between taking the loot or not.  The loot serves no purpose at all except to fulfil Bioware's apparent compulsion to scatter every single screen with chests and barrels.

[Yrkoon]

Sepewrath wrote...
 
In fact what your saying only supports my point, the modern take on the Fallout franchise is why it sold so well, .

Oh, I'd say the fact that it's avaliable on PS3 and Xbox 360 might have a little more to do with how much better it sold than its predecessors than any  merging-of-genre or whatever your argument is.

I'm going to go out on the limb and say that Skyrim will outsell will Dragon Age as well.

There is no doubt about this.     It'll  probably also Double Mass Effect 2's sales.   But if anything, that just proves how Relevant and popular  a true, uncompromising RPG can be.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 octobre 2011 - 03:51 .

[Yuqi]

Yrkoon wrote...

I'm going to go out on the limb and say that Skyrim will outsell will Dragon Age as well.

There is no doubt about this.     It'll  probably also Double Mass Effect 2's sales.   But if anything, that just proves how Relevant and popular  a true, uncompromising RPG can be.

 Sandbox VS DA2
Geralt VS DA2
Theresa VS DA2
Fallout VS DA2
Witcher VS DA2

Why hasn't someone made a fighting game out of this yet? 

[Atakuma]

Yrkoon wrote...
There is no doubt about this.     It'll  probably also Double Mass Effect 2's sales.   But if anything, that just proves how Relevant and popular  a true, uncompromising RPG can be.

That's funny, Skyrim is more of an action game than DA2 will ever be, yet it's the "true" RPG.

[DarkDragon777]

Atakuma wrote...


That's funny, Skyrim is more of an action game than DA2 will ever be, yet it's the "true" RPG.

Are you sure about that?

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 02 octobre 2011 - 04:24 .

[tmp7704]

Quething wrote...

"Not being able to play this character in future content" isn't a foreseeable consequence of "this character dies"?

But no one said it had to be unforeseeable consequence. It is equally foreseeable (and ooc) like being aware that skipping some loot on the way might make things harder for your character down the road.

Besides, that's not a mechanical consequence at all.

I can't think of consequence more mechanical than "your character is dead, you can't continue the game with him/her". Note how the "your story ends here" screen is based on the same system.

Wulfram wrote...

There are in character story consequences to either choosing Dark Ritual or Ultimate Sacrifice. Whereas there's no acknowledgement at all of any choice between taking the loot or not. The loot serves no purpose at all except to fulfil Bioware's apparent compulsion to scatter every single screen with chests and barrels.

Lack of acknowledgement doesn't equal lack of choice -- the latter is still present and comes with tangible consequences. As for the function of loot, it seems to serve mainly as source of money and consumables for the player.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 octobre 2011 - 04:40 .

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

Lack of acknowledgement doesn't equal lack of choice -- the latter is still present and comes with tangible consequences.

It equals a metagaming choice which takes you out of the the game - it's no longer about whether your character would hurry or not, it's about whether the loot is worth acting nonsensically and out of character.

Some gameplay and story segregation is inevitable, but for me this is one which I find particularly jarring.

As for the function of loot, it seems to serve mainly as source of money and consumables for the player.

They could easily provide plenty of money and consumables easily enough without scattering random barrels, chests, crates and piles of rubble which mysteriously contain a bit off money and a healing potion absolutely everywhere.

[tmp7704]

Sepewrath wrote...

Are you keeping in mind the massive growth of the gaming audience from back in the days to the current time?

Yes. If your argument here is the number of players who may play RPGs increase as result, that goes directly against your earlier point the RPG games become less popular.

Are you keeping mind that Fallout 3 looks like a FPS, much to the chagrin of the classic FO audience? This is not something that can be denied so you can try to counter a point.

Same cannot be said about DAO, which also sold very well.
 

Everyone knows that the RPG genre is not what it use to be

No. Some people claim "everyone knows", ignoring facts to the contrary.

In fact what your saying only supports my point, the modern take on the Fallout franchise is why it sold so well, What you think all 4 million people who bought that game, spent 2yrs on forums finding out how much of an RPG it was? Or do you think they saw bullets flying in slow motion, exploding peoples heads and then went out and bought it? Why don't you compare the sells of a modern Fallout series to Dragon Age and see the difference.

Third game for extremely succesful and established RPG IP sells ~4.7 milion units. First game for brand new RPG IP sells 3+ million units. The difference is pretty easy to explain, and there's more factors to it than just whether the game looks like a shooter -- if your stance was right, you'd have hard time explaining the difference in sales between F3 and ME2, e.g.

I'm going to go out on the limb and say that Skyrim will outsell will Dragon Age as well.

Yes, a great-looking 15th title in the very popular Elder Scrolls series may sell better than a relatively new IP. You're not going on any limb here, that's something bloody obvious.

this series needs to move forward and controlling more than one person is no excuse for it not to. That is a lame excuse.

Feel free to explain how it'd be possible to avoid this issue. Or even how changing to approach you personally happen to prefer would be "a move forward".

[Yrkoon]

Atakuma wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
There is no doubt about this.     It'll  probably also Double Mass Effect 2's sales.   But if anything, that just proves how Relevant and popular  a true, uncompromising RPG can be.

That's funny, Skyrim is more of an action game than DA2 will ever be, yet it's the "true" RPG.

 Meaningless statement.  Show me an RPG created after 1996 that isn't  action-based.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 octobre 2011 - 05:35 .

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

It equals a metagaming choice which takes you out of the the game

I don't really see much metagaming in being aware that a mansion of Denerim mayor might be loaded with things that could be of huge benefit for a living in poverty city elf. And that you're making a decision whether you'll be richer in the future, or poorer.

Metagaming in this context would to me be rather reasoning along lines "it's perfectly fine for me to stop and loot everything on the way because the plot in game always waits for the player (and i looked it up on the web and it says there's only one ending to this quest)". But it's not reasoning you have to use.

They could easily provide plenty of money and consumables easily enough without scattering random barrels, chests, crates and piles of rubble which mysteriously contain a bit off money and a healing potion absolutely everywhere.

They could, and they do -- enemies drop money, quests reward you with money, you can purchase and/or craft consumables in bulk from the vendors. On the other hand, there's subset of RPG players who get kick out of exploring, checking and looting every nook and cranny, and these can acquire the resources through this additional distribution system.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 octobre 2011 - 05:40 .

[Wulfram]

tmp7704 wrote...

I don't really see much metagaming in being aware that a mansion of Denerim mayor might be loaded with things that could be of huge benefit for a living in poverty city elf. And that you're making a decision whether you'll be richer in the future, or poorer.

The metagaming comes from the knowledge that time doesn't matter at all, that you can spent your time checking barrels for spare change and it won't make an iota of difference to what happens to Shianni.

They could, and they do -- enemies drop money, quests reward you with money, you can purchase and/or craft consumables in bulk from the vendors. On the other hand, there's subset of RPG players who get kick out of exploring, checking and looting every nook and cranny, and these can acquire the resources through this additional distribution system.

Are there really many of these people?  Is there really anyone who would be disappointed that they didn't get the opportunity to root around in some rubble while they're fleeing from a horde of Darkspawn?

To me, it's not good game design to reward people for nonsensical and tedious play.

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

The metagaming comes from the knowledge that time doesn't matter at all, that you can spent your time checking barrels for spare change and it won't make an iota of difference to what happens to Shianni.

Yes, but like i said, this is reasoning you can use when making your decision, but don't have to. Especially when playing the first time you can't even be sure if this reasoning is actually correct (unless you go ahead and use out of game resources) as it's at that point unverified presumption.

Are there really many of these people?

I don't know how many of them is nowadays, but it used to be significant portion.

To me, it's not good game design to reward people for nonsensical and tedious play.

Isn't it more of a situation like with crafting where, since you personally don't see the point and/or appeal in the system, you'd prefer to just get it axed, and such game better aligned with your personal tastes is something you consider a game better in general?

Nonsensical and tedious is in the eye of beholder. While i don't see the appeal of barrel loot (and most looting in general) there's also few things more nonsensical to me than mandatory combat encounters with groups of mooks every 50 metres, e.g. I don't think the game would actually become better for overall playerbase if it got rid of all this stuff, though. The approach which offers instead multiple routes (like in the case of money/consumables getting it through either loot, scavenger hunts or vendors) to appeal to multiple tastes this way work better, imo.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 octobre 2011 - 06:17 .

[Everwarden]

Atakuma wrote...
That's funny, Skyrim is more of an action game than DA2 will ever be, yet it's the "true" RPG.

It maintains the style of the series, unlike DA2. And it's as true to being a 'role-playing game' (or looks that way) as anything in recent memory. In the Elder Scrolls you can play as whoever you want, do what you want, and tell the main quest to bugger off.

Compare this to the railroading and lack of even basic control over the world or your character in Dragon Age II. You control Hawke's tone of voice, and that's about it. Big difference. 

[Morroian]

Yrkoon wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
There is no doubt about this.     It'll  probably also Double Mass Effect 2's sales.   But if anything, that just proves how Relevant and popular  a true, uncompromising RPG can be.

That's funny, Skyrim is more of an action game than DA2 will ever be, yet it's the "true" RPG.

Meaningless statement.  Show me an RPG created after 1996 that isn't  action-based.

The player won't be able to set attribute points so its not really a true, uncompromising rpg.

[Yrkoon]

 Everyone starts at level 1 with the base minimum statistics (adjusted for whatever race you choose)  You can then control the advancement of each of these  stats  with every action you choose to take in game. Not sure how that goes against anyone's definition of ROLE playing

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:07 .

[Reno_Tarshil]

Resident Evil 4 is a rpg.

[Morroian]

Yrkoon wrote...

 Everyone starts at level 1 with the base minimum statistics (adjusted for whatever race you choose)  You can then control the advancement of each of these  stats  with every action you choose to take in game. Not sure how that goes against anyone's definition of ROLE playing

I'm not saying it isn't a role playing game I'm saying I don't think it can be called a 'true uncompromising rpg' without the ability to set attribute points where the player wants.

[Yrkoon]

But you can set your stats where you want. If I decide, for example, that I  want to be a master archer, I'll keep using my bow, as archers do. then after several hours of field practice, I can look up and notice how high my archery skills have become.

Edit: Wait, are you arguing that the game's  not an uncompromizing rpg because it doesn't have specific attributes like "Strength" and  "Dexterity"?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Drasanil]

Yrkoon wrote...
Edit: Wait, are you arguing that the game's  not an uncompromizing rpg because it doesn't have specific attributes like "Strength" and  "Dexterity"?

I don't get that myself. The game has three core stats namely, health, magicka and stamina which you can alot points to and a buyable perk system at level up. If the perks are handled properly it should actually give characters better definition and focus than just pumping the equivilant str, end or int of the previous game, since it was ridiculously easy max all those stats out.