1467 réponses à ce sujet

[Thompson family]

People will try ME3 on action mode and then reply it to see what they missed, especially since the characters have had the benefit of three games' worth of refinement and because of the heart-string pulling such as the little kid at the beginning.

This game is far more likely grow the RPG audience than shrink it.

Modifié par Thompson family, 08 novembre 2011 - 02:41 .

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Then you are purposely being annoying when arguing. Thank you for pointing it out.

I pointed out that I "may be" annoying, and I never said I was purposely so.

Well except with the people who expect that of me. Can'd disappoint them, have to feed their convicion on how good they can judge others' characters.

You specifically said that you are forum Villain (which makes no sense) and state it as a reason for making an argument out of nothing. Basically you are being purposely annoying.

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...

You specifically said that you are forum Villain (which makes no sense)

I said I was "apparently" one.

[Terror_K]

Thompson family wrote...

People will try ME3 on action mode and then reply it to see what they missed, especially since the characters have had the benefit of three games' worth of refinement and because of the heart-string pulling such as the little kid at the beginning.

This game is far more likely grow the RPG audience than shrink it.

Uh-huh. And with BioWare no longer developing deep RPGs, where exactly is this going to lead them?

I remember one of the devs' defenses leading up to ME2 was "if we branch out and grow our audience with ME2, then perhaps we can wean them onto proper RPGs like Dragon Age: Origins."

That's all very well... except when you're no longer even making proper RPGs any more, since they've already turned Dragon Age into a shallow, hack'n'slash affair.

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 novembre 2011 - 02:49 .

[Thompson family]

Terror_K wrote...

Uh-huh. And with BioWare no longer developing deep RPGs, where exactly is this going to lead them?

Somewhere else. In which case Bioware would be growing customers for Bethesda, for instance, if they've made the decision to abandon the RPG -- which makes no sense whatsover. If they are abandoning RPGs as you argue, they wouldn't be doing this.

I remember one of the devs' defenses leading up to ME2 was "if we branch out and grow our audience with ME2, then perhaps we can wean them onto proper RPGs like Dragon Age: Origins."

That's all very well... except when you're no longer even making proper RPGs any more, since they've already turned Dragon Age into a shallow, hack'n'slash affair.

If that is an exact quote, please acknowledge that Dragon Age: Origins is clearly an RPG.

You must be making reference to Dragon Age 2 -- which the founders of BioWare clearly admitted was a serious mistake, and did it in a press interview.

Modifié par Thompson family, 08 novembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[Terror_K]

Thompson family wrote...

Somewhere else. In which case Bioware would be growing customers for Bethesda, for instance, if they've made the decision to abandon the RPG -- which makes no sense whatsover. If they are abandoning RPGs as you argue, they wouldn't be doing this.

They are though. They've made it pretty damn clear they don't want to make RPGs any more and their very definition of "RPG" has changed. They want to make semi-cinematic, story-driven action games with light RPG elements.

Y'know... just like almost everybody else these days. Action games are adding more narrative, cinematic and light RPG elements as time goes on, giving us the likes of Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, the Batman Arkham games, etc. And lately BioWare are removing strong RPG elements and adding more action. They're both coming to the same point, merely from different sides. What BioWare want is to simply water down their RPGs into these semi-cinematic, story-driven action games and still call them RPGs by simply giving players a little more choice.

And now it seems even that choice is totally optional now.

If that is an exact quote, please acknowledge that Dragon Age: Origins is clearly an RPG.

You must be making reference to Dragon Age 2 -- which the founders of BioWare clearly admitted was a serious mistake, and did it in a press interview.

It's not an exact quote since I don't remember the exact quote, but that was basically it paraphrased. This was before anything had been released about DA2, in that post-DAO but before ME2 period.

And I've always considered DAO a proper RPG. That's why what DA2 was such a horrible train-wreck even more than it was.

Also, the DA2 devs knew exactly what they were doing while making the game. They only admitted it was a mistake because their little gamble didn't pay off as much as they had hoped. It was still a deliberate sabotage and dumbing-down on their part... there's enough pre-release info and interviews that make that damn clear. I can't believe there are people on the forums here who still buy their DLC and are falling for their crap about improving DA3 to be honest.

[Schneidend]

Terror_K wrote...

Uh-huh. And with BioWare no longer developing deep RPGs, where exactly is this going to lead them?

I remember one of the devs' defenses leading up to ME2 was "if we branch out and grow our audience with ME2, then perhaps we can wean them onto proper RPGs like Dragon Age: Origins."

That's all very well... except when you're no longer even making proper RPGs any more, since they've already turned Dragon Age into a shallow, hack'n'slash affair.

What, exactly, is the basis for comparison here? You're implying Dragon Age 2 is hack-and-slash, as opposed to what other RPG that doesn't have lots of combat?

[Thompson family]

Terror_K wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

... If they are abandoning RPGs as you argue, they wouldn't be doing this.

They are though. They've made it pretty damn clear they don't want to make RPGs any more and their very definition of "RPG" has changed. They want to make semi-cinematic, story-driven action games with light RPG elements.

Y'know... just like almost everybody else these days. Action games are adding more narrative, cinematic and light RPG elements as time goes on, giving us the likes of Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, the Batman Arkham games, etc. And lately BioWare are removing strong RPG elements and adding more action. They're both coming to the same point, merely from different sides. What BioWare want is to simply water down their RPGs into these semi-cinematic, story-driven action games and still call them RPGs by simply giving players a little more choice.

And now it seems even that choice is totally optional now.

That's a valid view that could well happen. I disagree, but admit I can't disprove it.

And I've always considered DAO a proper RPG. That's why what DA2 was such a horrible train-wreck even more than it was.

Also, the DA2 devs knew exactly what they were doing while making the game. They only admitted it was a mistake because their little gamble didn't pay off as much as they had hoped. It was still a deliberate sabotage and dumbing-down on their part... there's enough pre-release info and interviews that make that damn clear. I can't believe there are people on the forums here who still buy their DLC and are falling for their crap about improving DA3 to be honest.

Suppose your premise is true -- that the apology was only becasue BW got burned. Well, they still got burned..

Our disagreement on this point's pretty simple. You believe DA2 shows their true intent. I think they learned something from the DA2 debacle and it makes a repeat of that mistake with ME2 far less likely.

Modifié par Thompson family, 08 novembre 2011 - 03:26 .

[Vegos]

Schneidend wrote...


What, exactly, is the basis for comparison here? You're implying Dragon Age 2 is hack-and-slash, as opposed to what other RPG that doesn't have lots of combat?

I think the basis is "Fantasy doesn't equal RPG".

To clarify, myself, I don't see Diablo as a RPG, because there's hardly any role playing in it. Can't call a game a role playing game if there's no role playing in it.

[Schneidend]

Vegos wrote...

I think the basis is "Fantasy doesn't equal RPG".

To clarify, myself, I don't see Diablo as a RPG, because there's hardly any role playing in it. Can't call a game a role playing game if there's no role playing in it.

RPG as a video game genre is unique in that it has both a mechanical component that came first, the stats and loot and other such things, and a literary component in the emotional involvement and dialogue. To suggest that Diablo isn't an RPG because it more heavily favors the mechanical component is a little silly, in my opinion.

[Vegos]

Schneidend wrote...


RPG as a video game genre is unique in that it has both a mechanical component that came first, the stats and loot and other such things, and a literary component in the emotional involvement and dialogue. To suggest that Diablo isn't an RPG because it more heavily favors the mechanical component is a little silly, in my opinion.

And calling it a RPG without the ability to actually role play is silly in mine, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Siegdrifa]

Thompson family wrote...

People will try ME3 on action mode and then reply it to see what they missed, especially since the characters have had the benefit of three games' worth of refinement and because of the heart-string pulling such as the little kid at the beginning.

This game is far more likely grow the RPG audience than shrink it.

I agree, the teasing of missing choice could give a good reason to try the RPG mode.

If i could be picky though, i would suggest Bioware to put RPG on top position, since it this mode give acces to all the action and story.

I find:
1: Action mode
2: Story mode
3: RPG mode
Make this game appear like his roots are a pure action game, and the other mode are here to appeal the the non pownzor audiance.

[FoxHound109]

ITT: 52 pages of self-entitlement.

[1136342t54_]

FoxHound109 wrote...

ITT: 52 pages of self-entitlement.

If you expected something more your on the wrong internet.

[FoxHound109]

1136342t54 wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

ITT: 52 pages of self-entitlement.

If you expected something more your on the wrong internet.

I'm not. It was mostly a joke. 

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Y'know... just like almost everybody else these days. Action games are adding more narrative, cinematic and light RPG elements as time goes on, giving us the likes of Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, the Batman Arkham games, etc. And lately BioWare are removing strong RPG elements and adding more action. They're both coming to the same point, merely from different sides. What BioWare want is to simply water down their RPGs into these semi-cinematic, story-driven action games and still call them RPGs by simply giving players a little more choice.

And now it seems even that choice is totally optional now.

When exactly did Assassin's Creed and Batman start adding RPG elements?

[Terror_K]

Thompson family wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Also, the DA2 devs knew exactly what they were doing while making the game. They only admitted it was a mistake because their little gamble didn't pay off as much as they had hoped. It was still a deliberate sabotage and dumbing-down on their part... there's enough pre-release info and interviews that make that damn clear. I can't believe there are people on the forums here who still buy their DLC and are falling for their crap about improving DA3 to be honest.

Suppose your premise is true -- that the apology was only becasue BW got burned. Well, they still got burned..

Our disagreement on this point's pretty simple. You believe DA2 shows their true intent. I think they learned something from the DA2 debacle and it makes a repeat of that mistake with ME2 far less likely.

The fact is, almost all the complaints that DA2 received were already being made prior to launch. As soon as the first screenshots were posted people were questioning the sudden art style changes and thought the darkspawn looked awful, and it just kept going from there. But each time Mike Laidlaw and co. kept on dismissing the negative comments and insisting DA2 was a better game all-round and that the IP was moving forward and not backwards, despite also basically admitting to streamlining and making it more accessible to branch out, that the lead platform was now console instead of PC, and that the original MO (i.e. spiritual successor to BG, return to their roots, strong PC-driven fantasy RPG, etc.)  was no longer needed now and they could ignore that perogative entirely.

The basic point is, plenty of people called them on this prior to launch, but the devs ignored it and made it pretty damn clear that everything they had done was intentional for the sake of gaining more fans and $$$ and that they were more concerned about that than pleasing the old fans. Even shortly after it came out Laidlaw was still defending it and belittling the displeased players, especially the PC ones, and even saying he believes DA2 took the IP in a better place and that all the things fans wanted that DAO had and it didn't were archaic mechanics that are the past and BioWare won't use again. It wasn't until about two months in when these remarks had caused even more ire and then died down a little that the devs finally admitted to (some of) the games' faults, but by that point the damage was done.

And even now they're still missing the point and still feel the answer lies in marrying the best of DA2 and DAO, which is not the answer. It's still a wishy-washy attempt to have their cake and eat it too and try to bridge the series between two types of gamer instead of just making Dragon Age the way it was originally intended and should be made. Mass Effect is a series that at least works as an action-RPG, but Dragon Age doesn't. At least not as a direct sequel. Had DA2 been a spin-off it wouldn't have been so bad, but it wasn't. And the fact that the development team intentionally screwed with the original concept and purposefully twisted it for the sake of maintreaming it just makes it all the worse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm more annoyed at the development team for their mentality, attitude and intent than how bad the game turned out to be, and that's the reason why Dragon Age as a series is dead to me now. And this is something ME2 already did to a degree, even if it wasn't quite as extreme. I don't want to see an IP I've invested into once again get warped to be too mainstream. After ME1 and the first novels I thought Mass Effect was the second-coming of Star Wars for me, but it seems we're already starting to head into prequel territory only a few years in.

[FoxHound109]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Y'know... just like almost everybody else these days. Action games are adding more narrative, cinematic and light RPG elements as time goes on, giving us the likes of Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, the Batman Arkham games, etc. And lately BioWare are removing strong RPG elements and adding more action. They're both coming to the same point, merely from different sides. What BioWare want is to simply water down their RPGs into these semi-cinematic, story-driven action games and still call them RPGs by simply giving players a little more choice.

And now it seems even that choice is totally optional now.

When exactly did Assassin's Creed and Batman start adding RPG elements?

Batman has an experience system that lets you buy abilities. AC II lets you upgrade weapons and armor. It's not really much though, but in Terror_K's defense, she did say "LIGHT" RPG elements.

[1136342t54_]

FoxHound109 wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

ITT: 52 pages of self-entitlement.

If you expected something more your on the wrong internet.

I'm not. It was mostly a joke. 

I know that is why responded in a joking way.

[Gatt9]

Thompson family wrote...

People will try ME3 on action mode and then reply it to see what they missed, especially since the characters have had the benefit of three games' worth of refinement and because of the heart-string pulling such as the little kid at the beginning.

This game is far more likely grow the RPG audience than shrink it.

Strongly disagree.

The assumptions you're making is that...

1.  Action mode will be satisfying.
2.  People will want to replay the *exact* same things for no other reason than to hear more dialogue.

My counter-arguements are...

1.  ME2 was a very bad shooter.  It was claustrophobicly linear,  with horrible AI,  and bland weaponry (In comparison to modern shooters).  I see no reason why a Shooter fan would find ME2 compelling,  and I'm not seeing a reason to expect anything better from ME3 as it has the same engine limitations.
2.  The group we are talking about here,  Shooter fans,  aren't generally known for their desire to hear dialogue.

I contend there really isn't a reason to expect these people,  who gravitate towards CoD,  GoW,  and their kin to find Mass Effect at all satisfying.  I also contend that to expect them to suddenly shift their gaming preference is highly unrealistic at best. 

I also contend it's highly unlikely to grow the RPG audience.  This isn't a new genre,  if people don't like the concepts behind an RPG,  giving them a Shooter mode isn't going to make them suddenly change their minds about the RPG mechanics they just completely ignored.  It's not like this is a new invention,  for anyone under 40 the opportunity to play RPG's has been prevelant,  and people who don't like RPG's already assessed the genre and don't like it.

Then,  I also contend ME3 isn't really going to be an RPG.  But that's a topic for a different thread.

Modifié par Gatt9, 08 novembre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...
When exactly did Assassin's Creed and Batman start adding RPG elements?

I meant they're heading for more customisation, narrative and cinematic nature, etc. that BioWare games are known for. Assassin's Creed 2 and beyond has had item upgrades, and Batman AA also has leveling up and purchasing certain skills, gadgets, abilities, etc.

My overall point is that action games are adding more depth to their gameplay and are becoming more cinematic and story-driven, which BioWare games were already known for. While action games have been adding more depth and RPG-esque features and thus becoming "more BioWare" from a certain perspective, BioWare have been reducing their depth and becoming more action-oriented, and from that same perspective becoming "less BioWare" than they used to be.

At some point they're going to meet, and we're going to end up with BioWare simply making the same type of games as Ubisoft, Naughty Dog and Rocksteady: semi-cinematic, story-driven action games with light RPG elements.

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 novembre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Celtic Latino]

I actually don't mind this.

Some playthroughs I just want to see the variables based on my decisions, so breezing through the combat is okay.

Some playthroughs I want to test a certain build, its then I don't want the cinematics to interfere too much. Also useful for pure paragon/pure renegade playthroughs that I know I'm only going to select one response or another.

And the option is there for those who want both. In my canon/most playthroughs it will probably be that for me. I want my gameplay and my story.

I think that's a good move on Bioware's part. Just as long as they don't take what fans of the first two games worked so hard for.

[spirosz]

Terror_K wrote...

I meant they're heading for more customisation, narrative and cinematic nature, etc. that BioWare games are known for. Assassin's Creed 2 and beyond has had item upgrades, and Batman AA also has leveling up and purchasing certain skills, gadgets, abilities, etc.

My overall point is that action games are adding more depth to their gameplay and are becoming more cinematic and story-driven, which BioWare games were already known for. While action games have been adding more depth and RPG-esque features and thus becoming "more BioWare" from a certain perspective, BioWare have been reducing their depth and becoming more action-oriented, and from that same perspective becoming "less BioWare" than they used to be.

At some point they're going to meet, and we're going to end up with BioWare simply making the same type of games as Ubisoft, Naughty Dog and Rocksteady: semi-cinematic, story-driven action games with light RPG elements.

I disagree because I define a RPG through it's story, characters, and making my characters decisions, not upgrading or anything related to that matter, though I see your point.  Everyone of their titles defined what makes an RPG for me, but again, that's different from your perspective, which is fine.  Also, genres today are so mixed up and have so many different definitions (especially an RPG), it's hard to really argue those points, though they did state that Mass Effect was a hybrid, if that even matters.  

Modifié par spiros9110, 08 novembre 2011 - 04:14 .

[Gatt9]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
When exactly did Assassin's Creed and Batman start adding RPG elements?

I meant they're heading for more customisation, narrative and cinematic nature, etc. that BioWare games are known for. Assassin's Creed 2 and beyond has had item upgrades, and Batman AA also has leveling up and purchasing certain skills, gadgets, abilities, etc.

My overall point is that action games are adding more depth to their gameplay and are becoming more cinematic and story-driven, which BioWare games were already known for. While action games have been adding more depth and RPG-esque features and thus becoming "more BioWare" from a certain perspective, BioWare have been reducing their depth and becoming more action-oriented, and from that same perspective becoming "less BioWare" than they used to be.

At some point they're going to meet, and we're going to end up with BioWare simply making the same type of games as Ubisoft, Naughty Dog and Rocksteady: semi-cinematic, story-driven action games with light RPG elements.

It's the Self-fullfilling prophecy effect.  Publishers only want the biggest selling games,  not the best quality games.  So they say "No" to anything not mainstream,  claiming "Oh,  you can't sell that type of game anymore",  because it isn't Doom or Warcraft.  So you get a flood of weak clones.

Eventually,  people get tired of it and quit buying it.  Then you stop making those types of games too.  Like Ubisoft and EA claim you can't sell strategy games anymore.

Now everything's gotta be a Doom clone.  Hence ME3,  and the rest of the games gravitating toward Shooter-lite with a illusionary leveling system (Since you can kill everything in the game at level 1 anyways).

People are tired of the same game over and over.  Now even the Shooters aren't selling well.  EA's not having a good year so far.  Bulletstorm,  DA2,  Dead Space 2,  Shadows of the Damned,  the reports are that all underperformed or outright bombed.

I suspect this,  combined with consoles launching into a steadily dropping market,  will end up wiping out everyone but Activision.  Trying to sell people $500-$700 consoles just to play the same Shooter-esque games they've been playing for the last 5 years isn't going to do well.

Toss in a EU that's now potentially going to have a major financial collapse,  we're on the cusp of a gaming meltdown.

I mean heck,  in the last month alone I've read about 1 studio closing (LA Noire),  and 2-3 more laying off most of their staff.  But people keep trying to claim I don't know what I'm talking about,  and that "Everything's a Shooter" is a great buisness plan.

[Terror_K]

spiros9110 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I meant they're heading for more customisation, narrative and cinematic nature, etc. that BioWare games are known for. Assassin's Creed 2 and beyond has had item upgrades, and Batman AA also has leveling up and purchasing certain skills, gadgets, abilities, etc.

My overall point is that action games are adding more depth to their gameplay and are becoming more cinematic and story-driven, which BioWare games were already known for. While action games have been adding more depth and RPG-esque features and thus becoming "more BioWare" from a certain perspective, BioWare have been reducing their depth and becoming more action-oriented, and from that same perspective becoming "less BioWare" than they used to be.

At some point they're going to meet, and we're going to end up with BioWare simply making the same type of games as Ubisoft, Naughty Dog and Rocksteady: semi-cinematic, story-driven action games with light RPG elements.

I disagree because I define a RPG through it's story and characters, not upgrading or anything related to that matter, though I see your point.  Everyone of their titles defined what makes an RPG for me, but again, that's different from your perspective, which is fine.  Also, genres today are so mixed up and have so many different definitions (especially an RPG), it's hard to really argue those points, though they did state that Mass Effect was a hybrid, if that even matters.  

Well, part of the problem whenever discussing RPGs here is that everybody has their different definitions. I personally define RPGs by how the rest of the industry does, not on personal preferences or what it means to me personally. My favourite aspect of BioWare games is actually the characters and story too, but I acknowledge they are not factors that actually solely define an RPG, since there are plenty of games that have these factors and aren't, and also plenty of RPGs that don't, but are. In either case, I did state the more cinematic and story-driven nature of AC and Batman AA/AC as contributing factors as much as the statistical progression and upgrades.

My basic point however is this: there are too many of these ill-defined hybrids lately, and that seems to be where 90% of today's AAA titles are either at or heading to. It doesn't mean these games are bad, but it means we're getting a distinct lack of variety and many genres are starting to lose the factors that help shape and define them because they are all getting hybridised and warped into these types of game I mention because of how popular they are. And that's also the reason why RPGs are meaning different things to different people these days. In the days of Baldur's Gate and even as late as KotOR, a gamer's definition of what an RPG was was largely the same. It's only been in the last 6-7 years with the rise if hybrid games that the definition has changed for different people, which is leading us to an era now where a lot of people don't actually know what an RPG is, and prefer to define it by common factors they like in RPGs rather than what actually constitutes an RPG.

Definitons aren't really the point though. The point is that due to the trends of big name titles and the fact there are so many hybrid titles these days borrowing from all genres, the RPG is losing its identity. Again, it's not inherently a bad thing, but the way it's happening where the pure RPG is becoming a rarer and rarer thing is something I'm personally not a fan of. It's leading to genre fatigue, IMO.