360 réponses à ce sujet

[Gunderic]

vania z wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

And i still don't understand where the "JRPG" is in Dragon Age II. i can see where "over-the-top arcade action" comes in, even though i think that phrase to be a little exaggerated, but "JRPG"? i just don't see it.

Swords larger than humans, probably? 

also this.

[Medhia Nox]

The "Origins" themselves were such a unique and fascinating approach to an RPG. I cannot fathom why - after only one game - this was removed. The Origins were a way to tell the game - "This is how I want to play." - an evolution of that should have possibly seen Dragon Age 2 take the "Origin" and then expand on it throughout the game making it even more relevant.

It truly felt like something new had finally been done with RPGs... and then it was just thrown out the window. Bioware has done this before - with Neverwinter Nights.

I am not sure why the Neverwinter Nights Toolset/Player/DM Client model was ever thrown out. You can get rid of D&D - that's fine - but I felt that this model should have been the future of ALL CRPGs. The ability to design and play in our own persistent worlds. It was a truly unique and amazing design.

I also thought it could have been insanely profitable with expansion upon expansion - adding more and more to the toolset while creating "Dragon Age" like stories on it. Now - micro-transactions could have made Bioware a fortune. ((NOTE: I'm not talking about the license or the name or whatever - I'm talking about the toolset/player/DM client scheme))

I truly thought Dragon Age: Origins was going to do just that. Leave D&D behind - but keep those fundamental elements of user created tools.

I have to agree with other posters that there has simply been change for its own sake - with DA 2, I lost some faith - I look forward to regaining it with DA 3 (in a few years, when you guys work the magic we all know you can)

[FedericoV]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Many people are using the results of our decisions to try and "prove" that ourdecisions were wrong, and I disagree with that.

C'mon Stanley, if DA2 had sold more copies than DA:O, Bioware would have used that as an argument to proove the success of his vision and the DA team would have even gone further with the changes... like removing party based gameplay (I remember Laidlaw talking about that before we started to play the game and the criticism reached the forum) . It has allways been about sales since you announced that DA2 would have been about awesome buttons, shots of adrenaline and building bridges with God of War.

by my way of thinking, we made decisions that weren't terribly popular
and ended up not succeeding either at all or not as much as we would
have liked.

Well, maybe it's true if you believe that old school gameplay, freedom and choice & consequences are popular. But most criticism I've read is about the execution and not the general plan. Even if annoyed by the loud marketing, I was intrigued by DA2 general plan before I played the actual game. I would really like to know what feature/decisions in the game are not popular in your opinion, since most of them looks like being heavily influenced by ME2 and ME2 is your most successfull game beside BG2.

but those decisions were, in all ways, ours to make, and at the time we made them, they were good ones. Up until release, there is no way to determine how such decisions would affect sales, or even if they would. Would our core audience accept them? would we succeed in attracting a new audience with these changes? Obviously, we would have had a positive opinion.

No one is questioning your right to develop the games you want and to make any decision you want. I'm sure that the industry is wrong about many issues and that a game like BG2 is still a very popular format but who am I at the end, just a player trying to express his opinions in a crappy english.

But I have the right to loose respect of the whole process of decision making in Bioware if I start to doubt about your good faith and suspect that you are not driven by design and artistic reasons anymore (beside sales, off course). In DA2, for the first time, I felt like a Bioware customer and not a Bioware gamer anymore. Infact, I had a distinct feeling that most decisions and changes in DA2 were caused by a lack of time, resources and ambition, mixed with an excessive focus on sales and commerciality.

And i still don't understand where the "JRPG" is in Dragon Age II. i can see where "over-the-top arcade action" comes in, even though i think that phrase to be a little exaggerated, but "JRPG"? i just don't see it.

Well, swords bigger than charachters, the design of Fenris and the general absence of gravity and realism in the combat animation felt a lot like a JRPG influence. Not to mention excessive linearity and lack of freedom wich is a staple of JRPGs.

An entirely fair comment, and we have heard it many times. it's a great way to summarize some of the problems people had with DA2, and I wish more people in the community could just say it like you did instead of freaking out about it.

That's true and right and all: but I hope that you have noted that it happens more often when you speak honestly and thoughtfully with us, just like how you have done in your first post (and I'm thankfull of that).

Modifié par FedericoV, 29 novembre 2011 - 05:30 .

[Addai]

AndarianTD wrote...
I understand and can definitely appreciate the more cinematic focus of the voice-acted games that have come to predominate in recent years. Mass Effect in particular was a brilliant example of this, and I'm certainly looking forward to new titles done in that style. Yet speaking personally, as both a reader and a writer, I think I would still prefer to play a game that was built more around a literary paradigm than a cinematic one -- in the style of the community modules for Neverwinter Nights, if it were well done. There's something about interactive prose vs. interactive cinema that I find less passive and more engaging. And as Este pointed out, it's also less difficult to produce, and more literary content could be created for a given number of "zots" worth of resources.

I recently had a discussion about my modding work with an acquaintance who is knowledgeable about neurophysiology, and he offered an observation about this that I found very interesting. After showing him video captures of a scene from my mod, he immediately remarked on how significant it was that I was presenting the story not in audible form using voice acting, but in visual form via prose reading. He explained that the brain processes information presented in those two modalities (audial and visual) in very different ways. In particular, audial information is processed sequentially across time, whereas visual information is processed more spatially and in parallel. That got me thinking about the differences between the two styles of gaming, and how voiced dialogs essentially shut down my experience of the rest of the game in order to follow the conversation in time. With text reading I find that I have a greater ability to pause, think, look around, bring my imagination more actively to bear, and in general take in the story and play experience more in parallel than when it's being presented to me in a voiced and cinematic format.

Este and I may be somewhat in the minority, but those are some of the reasons why I personally would spend as much or more of my money for a game experience that was perhaps less resource intensive, and more "literary" in style than the more cinematic games of recent years.

I've sometimes said I thought Origins was a more literary experience that I didn't get in either Mass Effect or DA2.  Wasn't sure how to explain it, but I recognize the dichotomy in what you're saying.  I'm kind of bummed I didn't play those earlier games when they came out.  Going back to them feels like quite a leap.

[Addai]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

According to some people on here you are already nostalgic beyond measure if you wanted more of DA:O in it's sequel...

[jussyr]

AndarianTD wrote...

I've debated this too many times on the BSN to care to do so again, so I'll just say for the record that I disagree. I found DA2 to be an excellent innovation that moved the genre forward in important ways.

I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game.  But that shouldn't have been done as DA2.  People went in expecting a similar experience to Origins, and ultimately it's the sense that we were almost misled that's the problem, I think.  Innovating, or creating a genre hybrid, halfway through an established series isn't a good idea; save it for a new one.

[Addai]

jussyr wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

I've debated this too many times on the BSN to care to do so again, so I'll just say for the record that I disagree. I found DA2 to be an excellent innovation that moved the genre forward in important ways.

I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game.  But that shouldn't have been done as DA2.  People went in expecting a similar experience to Origins, and ultimately it's the sense that we were almost misled that's the problem, I think.  Innovating, or creating a genre hybrid, halfway through an established series isn't a good idea; save it for a new one.

Explain to me how it is innovative, even if you consider it as its own game and not a sequel.  "Like Mass Effect" doesn't count.

[alex90c]

jussyr wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

I've debated this too many times on the BSN to care to do so again, so I'll just say for the record that I disagree. I found DA2 to be an excellent innovation that moved the genre forward in important ways.

I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game.  But that shouldn't have been done as DA2.  People went in expecting a similar experience to Origins, and ultimately it's the sense that we were almost misled that's the problem, I think.  Innovating, or creating a genre hybrid, halfway through an established series isn't a good idea; save it for a new one.

How the hell was it groundbreaking?

Don't talk absolute sh*t, it wasn't in the slightest.

[FedericoV]

jussyr wrote...
I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game. 

Yes, it was groundbreaking. The amount of content that you can charge for 60$ while selling still 2+ million copies is groundbreaking indeed .

Seriously, I would just like to understand, what are the groundbreaking feature of DA2?

I play CRPGs since the time of Ultima and the Golden Box. CRPG are my hobby and I played most of the famous ones. My friends joke about my addiction and call me the "CRPG hystorian". Well, I really cannot see any groundbreaking feature or innovation... if not for the icon/tone dialogue system wich comes to the cost of absolute linearity in terms of main and side quests and that is just a more polished version of the Alpha Protocol system.

Modifié par FedericoV, 29 novembre 2011 - 10:02 .

[AndarianTD]

alex90c wrote...

jussyr wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

I've debated this too many times on the BSN to care to do so again, so I'll just say for the record that I disagree. I found DA2 to be an excellent innovation that moved the genre forward in important ways.

I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game.  But that shouldn't have been done as DA2.  People went in expecting a similar experience to Origins, and ultimately it's the sense that we were almost misled that's the problem, I think.  Innovating, or creating a genre hybrid, halfway through an established series isn't a good idea; save it for a new one.

How the hell was it groundbreaking?

Don't talk absolute sh*t, it wasn't in the slightest.

And this is one of the reasons WHY I don't care to debate this question on the BSN anymore. When critics of the game can't even post a two sentence comment on it without resorting to profanity and incivility, there's no point.

[Jamie_edmo]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

The Lord of the Rings movies, Dragon Age: Origins, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, the Elder Scrolls series, the Witcher, all of these share that medieval recipe. Call them generic, but every one of these titles added their own soul to the basic stereotypes / conventions which are essential to the genre and to the mass audience. Granted, darkspawn are somehow the "orcs" of Dragon Age. Yes, Ostagar reminded us of Helm's Deep. But the Dragon Age setting also surprised and delighted us with a mysterious and intriguing background and history of the darkspawn, the Chantry, the elves, etc. and offered many beautiful twists to all the stereotypes. To me, DA:O was instantly unique and recognizable.

And this for me was why I loved DA:O, the lore, the settings and the characters that live in that world. The fact that I liked lotr is what had me intrested in the game (and all fantasy games in fact), maybe it was generic but it had a lot of soul to it and why I like it a lot more than other fantasy games like the Elder Scrolls games

Modifié par Jamie_edmo, 29 novembre 2011 - 09:19 .

[alex90c]

AndarianTD wrote...

alex90c wrote...

jussyr wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

I've debated this too many times on the BSN to care to do so again, so I'll just say for the record that I disagree. I found DA2 to be an excellent innovation that moved the genre forward in important ways.

I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game.  But that shouldn't have been done as DA2.  People went in expecting a similar experience to Origins, and ultimately it's the sense that we were almost misled that's the problem, I think.  Innovating, or creating a genre hybrid, halfway through an established series isn't a good idea; save it for a new one.

How the hell was it groundbreaking?

Don't talk absolute sh*t, it wasn't in the slightest.

And this is one of the reasons WHY I don't care to debate this question on the BSN anymore. When critics of the game can't even post a two sentence comment on it without resorting to profanity and incivility, there's no point.

Errr, how about rather than whining about my use of profanity you just answer the post?

DA2 WAS NOT GROUNDBREAKING.

And before the obligatory "yeah well DA:O wasn't either", I don't give a toss about whether DA:O was or not, this is about DA2.

[TheRealJayDee]

Sareth Cousland wrote...
They just want the classic medieval feel. I think the mass market requests the classic fantasy world in a typical medieval setting. It WANTS generic looking elves, because that's what elves look like since Tolkien defined them that way 

Not to mention that's simply how they introduced Dragon Age to us. As much as they can say it's their right to change things (which it is), people like a sense of continuity.

Sareth Cousland wrote...
The DA setting is one of the most promising fantasy settings in a very long time, in which a lot of fascinating stories can be told. I just think it should be solidly grounded in basic conventions of the genre, including the general art direction.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[FedericoV]

AndarianTD wrote...
And this is one of the reasons WHY I don't care to debate this question on the BSN anymore. When critics of the game can't even post a two sentence comment on it without resorting to profanity and incivility, there's no point.

Well, if you use bloated terms like "groundbreaking" you can even expect the use of profanity . I mean, Ultima IV and VII were groundbreaking. Diablo II was groundbreaking. Deus Ex was groundbreaking. But DA2, as hard as I try to find them, has not any feature that deserve such praise even if I'm truly open and I'm not totally negative about DA2 (I like some of the changes and I was interested in the general design direction but I was disappointed by the actual game and have admitted that the general plan was flawed at the end).

Modifié par FedericoV, 29 novembre 2011 - 10:11 .

[Shevy]

Sareth Cousland wrote...


The DA setting is one of the most promising fantasy settings in a very long time, in which a lot of fascinating stories can be told. I just think it should be solidly grounded in basic conventions of the genre, including the general art direction.

Couldn't explain it better. I even bought the first two novels, what I never did before, because the lore, the world (setting, art direction) and the charakters in it were absolutly fantastic. I think, if I only had played DA II, I would have never bought the books and loved the DA universe.

[Realmzmaster]

vania z wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...


Actually Greatswords could range anywhere fron 4.5 feet to 6 feet in length with some ceremonial swords up to 7 feet. The actual length is the same as the DAO swords. Now there could be a difference in width, but I do not think so.

Check this out
http://imageshack.us.../screen7pc.jpg/
http://imageshack.us...7/screen9o.jpg/

Check out this link. www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

Note the sizes and weight. Also note the man in the picture standing with one of the swords.

[bEVEsthda]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Many people are using the results of our decisions to try and "prove" that ourdecisions were wrong, and I disagree with that. by my way of thinking, we made decisions that weren't terribly popular and ended up not succeeding either at all or not as much as we would have liked. but those decisions were, in all ways, ours to make, and at the time we made them, they were good ones. Up until release, there is no way to determine how such decisions would affect sales, or even if they would. Would our core audience accept them? would we succeed in attracting a new audience with these changes? Obviously, we would have had a positive opinion.

And i still don't understand where the "JRPG" is in Dragon Age II. i can see where "over-the-top arcade action" comes in, even though i think that phrase to be a little exaggerated, but "JRPG"? i just don't see it.

I find almost everything in this statement somewhat astonishing.
There's not much point in arguing anything, I think, the simple points seem already to have been explained by others.

It's easy to see the rationale of the changes to combat (not animations and nuke effects, but the responsivness and flow). And I think this intent was right.
But personally, I'd always liked to assume that many of the other gameplay changes, as linearity and disconnecting the player to become a helpless passenger of the 'story', were made due to need of saving time? It still doesn't explain why you thought your usual audience wouldn't react, but nvm.

There a much more interesting question, which I probably won't get a serious, honest answer to, but:
- What audience was supposed to find the new style appealing?
- And why would they find the new style appealing? I mean there must have been some kind of theories about this. Who came up with those? It must have been very convincing theories, since you wasted so many zots, re-styling so much. 

[Realmzmaster]

FedericoV wrote...

jussyr wrote...
I agree.  The longer I think about, the more I conclude that (a few key problems aside), DA2 was an absolutely amazing, groundbreaking game. 

Yes, it was groundbreaking. The amount of content that you can charge for 60$ while selling still 2+ million copies is groundbreaking indeed .

Seriously, I would just like to understand, what are the groundbreaking feature of DA2?

I play CRPGs since the time of Ultima and the Golden Box. CRPG are my hobby and I played most of the famous ones. My friends joke about my addiction and call me the "CRPG hystorian". Well, I really cannot see any groundbreaking feature or innovation... if not for the icon/tone dialogue system wich comes to the cost of absolute linearity in terms of main and side quests and that is just a more polished version of the Alpha Protocol system.

There are very few groundbreaking cRPGs. You can count them on your hand. Most cRPGs follow the same basic formula and rarely deviate from it. Ultima IV was one, it changed how characters could be created. PST (Planescape Torment) was innovative in story and gameplay mechanics in a way that has not been duplicated.

DA2 is not groundbreaking. DAO was not groundbreaking. BG1 & BG2 overlaid real-time combat onto the 2.0 D & D ruleset, but basically was not earthshatteringly different from previous cRPGs.

FedericoV like myself has been around long enough and played most if not all the cRPGs within the past four decades. Many of the conventions used in cRPGs are based on D & D. There have been others based on Traveller and othe RPG systems. Tunnels and Trolls had the PC game Crusaders of Khazan. , but mostly D & D. In gameplay mechanics and conventions DAO is a departure from earlier cRPGs. I have discussed the differences in other posts on the forum so I will not repeat them.

I consider DAO and DA2 to be lightweight cRPGs when compared to some of the earlier cRPGs. Many of the conventions and mechanics that I think cRPGs should have are gone and since Federico has played the Gold Box games he probably knows what I am talking about.

FedericoV, what system did you play the Gold Box games on? I played on a C64 and Atari 800. What did you think about the Alternate Reality: City and Dungeon from Datasoft? It had functions that are not present in cRPGs of today.

[Phaedros]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The "Origins" themselves were such a unique and fascinating approach to an RPG. I cannot fathom why - after only one game - this was removed. The Origins were a way to tell the game - "This is how I want to play." - an evolution of that should have possibly seen Dragon Age 2 take the "Origin" and then expand on it throughout the game making it even more relevant.

It truly felt like something new had finally been done with RPGs... and then it was just thrown out the window.

exactly

Electronic Acccountants do not good games make ....

[Realmzmaster]

Phaedros wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

The "Origins" themselves were such a unique and fascinating approach to an RPG. I cannot fathom why - after only one game - this was removed. The Origins were a way to tell the game - "This is how I want to play." - an evolution of that should have possibly seen Dragon Age 2 take the "Origin" and then expand on it throughout the game making it even more relevant.

It truly felt like something new had finally been done with RPGs... and then it was just thrown out the window.

exactly

Electronic Acccountants do not good games make ....

No, but they do keep businesses from bankruptcy by watching the bottomline.

[Gemini1179]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Many people are using the results of our decisions to try and "prove" that our decisions were wrong, and I disagree with that.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, I simply found this comment to be funny. If you turn left and drive off a cliff, clearly the result should prove that your decision was an incorrect one.

Just suck it up already and eat the humble pie. Poor decisions were made- for whatever reasons that I am in no position to begin to speculate on- and it's time to move on. Changes and innovations can always be made in a game franchise without trying to reinvent the wheel.

The "stylized narrative" didn't work; calling things "ring" and "boots" is just plain lazy; the re-used locations were not an example of successful "quantity over quality"; players want to be the center of the action, not a spectator; the Junk Items... I'm not even going to go into the complete pointlessness of the Junk Items; limited companion outfit options; lack of a real ending for a character BW has said will not star in another game, etc.

On the other hand, I loved the new Tactics system, chopping out the bulk the traps, poison and potion making didn't bother me as I rarely did any of it in DAO anyway; the companion interactions were great and the freedom in the romance options was bold. Some of the quests were very emotionally engaging and the DLC has been fantastic.

I don't want to see a hybrid of DAO and DA2 for a third game either, but things like TOR's companion system might be a direction you could take that aspect of the game if you're intent on maintaining an "iconic" look for your companions.

I just ask that you make a game that feels like I'm actually making a diffence in what's happening, keeps me engaged and... has Merrill. <3

[Firky]

Gemini1179 wrote...

The "stylized narrative" didn't work; calling things "ring" and "boots" is just plain lazy;

Oh! Please don't see this as a criticism of your post. I know what you mean.

But, I love the way items in DAII are named. There are 58 uniquely named rings alone in DAII so far. Some of my favourites are Ring of No Wishes, The Inner Eye and Ichor.

And "Lady's Choice." I love that name for a ring.

I'm appreciating item names in the absence of item descriptions (which I used to love), but some of them are awesome. Also, I just counted 62 uniquely named rings in Origins, post DLC, so it's about the same.

[AmstradHero]

Realmzmaster wrote...
There are very few groundbreaking cRPGs. You can count them on your hand. Most cRPGs follow the same basic formula and rarely deviate from it. Ultima IV was one, it changed how characters could be created. PST (Planescape Torment) was innovative in story and gameplay mechanics in a way that has not been duplicated.

DA2 is not groundbreaking. DAO was not groundbreaking. BG1 & BG2 overlaid real-time combat onto the 2.0 D & D ruleset, but basically was not earthshatteringly different from previous cRPGs.

FedericoV like myself has been around long enough and played most if not all the cRPGs within the past four decades. Many of the conventions used in cRPGs are based on D & D. There have been others based on Traveller and othe RPG systems. Tunnels and Trolls had the PC game Crusaders of Khazan. , but mostly D & D. In gameplay mechanics and conventions DAO is a departure from earlier cRPGs. I have discussed the differences in other posts on the forum so I will not repeat them.

I consider DAO and DA2 to be lightweight cRPGs when compared to some of the earlier cRPGs. Many of the conventions and mechanics that I think cRPGs should have are gone and since Federico has played the Gold Box games he probably knows what I am talking about.

I hate this "old RPGs had more depth" argument, primarily because it's utter bollocks. I especially hate it when it's accompanied by a "check out my RPG credentials" list: Gold box games (PoR & Krynn series - though almost always missing Buck Rogers), Eye of the Beholder, Ultima (and the Underworld games), Wizardry, Dungeon Master, Dungeon Hack, Bard's Tale, Mordor(/Demise), or moving to BG and Infinity engine games, Fallout, Arcanum, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, let's not get in an ego contest here, because just spouting "I've played a lot of games" doesn't actually mean that you understand what makes a good game, or that you've actually analysed the depth of the game. Besides, trust me, I can probably go title for title with you anyway.

The Buck Rogers gold box games had more complexity than D&D gold box games, because they actually had skills that affected your adventure, both in combat and out of it.  Many of the "great old RPGs" rely entirely on the D&D system for their "complexity". If you really want to get down to it, things like Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 have some of the most complex systems of mainstream RPGs, because they have a multitude of feats, skills, and classes.

When you add in the fact that in modern RPGs you actually get to actively roleplay your character via the game mechanics as opposed to just "making it up in your head", the argument that "old RPGs had more depth" just doesn't hold water.  Sorry for getting a bit aggravated here, but this has got to be one of my pet hates from the "RPG elite". Heck, I'm a bit of an elitist when it comes to RPGs, but this trend of holding up older games as the be all and end all of game design has got to stop because it's just downright inaccurate.

The "good old complex RPG" had a moderate amount of complexity in its mechanics and in that there were a lot of visible numbers and number crunching to look at. Now, if you actually take a look at the systems in place in the "simple modern RPG", you'll see that in many cases that there is just as much complexity still present. It's less in your face, but it's still there, because ultimately whether you hit someone or not comes down to a random die roll, not whether you timed your button press correctly.

Where modern RPGs fall short of complexity in mechanics, they typically make up for it in other areas, such as choice/consequence or roleplaying customisation. When I play a gold box game, there's a very set path I have to play. I don't get to define a personality through the game, although I can make one up for my party members on my own. If I'm playing Dragon Age, I get to define the personality of my hero, and have NPCs react to that behaviour. If you want to return to a situation where you're focused entirely on mechanics and don't care about character control, then there's still a market for that - it's just that it's the JRPG.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 30 novembre 2011 - 07:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

The "good old complex RPG" had a moderate amount of complexity in its mechanics and in that there were a lot of visible numbers and number crunching to look at. Now, if you actually take a look at the systems in place in the "simple modern RPG", you'll see that in many cases that there is just as much complexity still present. It's less in your face, but it's still there, because ultimately whether you hit someone or not comes down to a random die roll, not whether you timed your button press correctly.

That complexity doesn't matter if the player isn't aware of if.  The mechanics are part of the game world, and as such should drive gameplay choices, but they can't do that as long as the player doesn't know what they are.

Where modern RPGs fall short of complexity in mechanics, they typically make up for it in other areas, such as choice/consequence or roleplaying customisation. When I play a gold box game, there's a very set path I have to play. I don't get to define a personality through the game, although I can make one up for my party members on my own. If I'm playing Dragon Age, I get to define the personality of my hero, and have NPCs react to that behaviour. If you want to return to a situation where you're focused entirely on mechanics and don't care about character control, then there's still a market for that - it's just that it's the JRPG.

I think you're missing the point on character control.  JRPGs fal because they allow no control, and make the details of your character explicit within the game's narrative.  So you're stuck with the character they give you, and you're forced to accept that the character is who they say it is.

Something like the Gold Box games (or BG, KotOR, or Wizardry) allows yo total control over the PC's personality.  That the game doesn't react to that personality is a different issue, but the customisation is totally there.

Right now, BioWare seems to want the game to react to the PC's choices in a meaningful way, but to do that they're dramatically limiting the possible range of those choices.  That's not even close to being an acceptable trade.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 novembre 2011 - 08:00 .