360 réponses à ce sujet

[Alex Kershaw]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Cool, people are clarifying and getting more specific on the kinds of things they want to see in a BioWare game. It seems I had misinterpreted what people were asking for.

So... people aren't asking us to recreate Baldur's Gate. They want us to create a game that will give them a similar experience of epic-ness, immersion, and sense of value as the BG series? Kind of like what we did with DAO? Is that correct?

CORRECT!

Completely the opposite to throwing us in one city with very little plot. The gameplay is not the priority. If it was, I'm pretty sure everyone here would be on the Arkham City forums and so on...

[Alex Kershaw]

Stanley Woo wrote....
4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

This is an important point.

Games that are short in length and focus on action gameplay or multiplayer would do well to innovate or they become static; for example, FIFA, Call of Duty and so on.

Games that are long in length or focus on story, strategy, player choice, etc, etc... can do perfectly well sticking to an established gameplay formula.

Look at Pokemon: one of the most memorable, best-selling and popular franchies of all time, with an identical but perfectly refined gameplay formula. Nintendos are masters of this - The Legend of Zelda and so on... If DA2 had a similar format to DAO: an epic tale, perhaps in a different country, with choices, tactical combat etc... Everybody would be happy. I can't remember a single RPG ever being 'told off' for being too familiar. That's because it's the story, characters, etc, that matters...

[Realmzmaster]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote....
4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

This is an important point.

Games that are short in length and focus on action gameplay or multiplayer would do well to innovate or they become static; for example, FIFA, Call of Duty and so on.

Games that are long in length or focus on story, strategy, player choice, etc, etc... can do perfectly well sticking to an established gameplay formula.

Look at Pokemon: one of the most memorable, best-selling and popular franchies of all time, with an identical but perfectly refined gameplay formula. Nintendos are masters of this - The Legend of Zelda and so on... If DA2 had a similar format to DAO: an epic tale, perhaps in a different country, with choices, tactical combat etc... Everybody would be happy. I can't remember a single RPG ever being 'told off' for being too familiar. That's because it's the story, characters, etc, that matters...

No eveybody would not be happy. I for one am tired of the same epic kill the big baddie and save the world. For example PST (Planescape Torment) is not an epic, world saving game, but it tells a personal story about the Nameless One who is immortal trying to discover who he is and why he cannot die. The game does not rely on combat. The game presents choices to the PC where combat can be avoided, or shealth can be used. The game broke the mold when it came to what a cRPG could be. I like the way PST was different.

I also liked Ultima IV. The premise was to become a shining example to the people . The goal was to become an example to the people and become a spiritual leader by showing others how to lead a virtuous life.

I like DA2 because it does not follow the same gameplay formula of DAO. I may be in the minority but that is my opinion. The only great disappointment I have with DA2 is using the idol to turn Meredith into an "ultimate evil". That was a cope out.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 novembre 2011 - 06:31 .

[maxernst]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote....
4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

This is an important point.

Games that are short in length and focus on action gameplay or multiplayer would do well to innovate or they become static; for example, FIFA, Call of Duty and so on.

Games that are long in length or focus on story, strategy, player choice, etc, etc... can do perfectly well sticking to an established gameplay formula.

Look at Pokemon: one of the most memorable, best-selling and popular franchies of all time, with an identical but perfectly refined gameplay formula. Nintendos are masters of this - The Legend of Zelda and so on... If DA2 had a similar format to DAO: an epic tale, perhaps in a different country, with choices, tactical combat etc... Everybody would be happy. I can't remember a single RPG ever being 'told off' for being too familiar. That's because it's the story, characters, etc, that matters...

Not eveybody would not be happy. I for one am tired of the same epic kill the big baddie and save the world. For example PST (Planescape Torment) is not an epic, world saving game, but it tells a personal story about the Nameless One who is immortal trying to discover who he is and why he cannot die. The game does not rely on combat. The game presents choices to the PC where combat can be avoided, or shealth can be used. The game broke the mold when it came to what a cRPG could be. I like the way PST was different.

I also liked Ultima IV. The premise was to become a shining example to the people . The goal was to become an example to the people and become a spiritual leader by showing others how to lead a virtuous life.

I like DA2 because it does not follow the same gameplay formula of DAO. I may be in the minority but that is my opinion. The only great disappointment I have with DA2 is using the idol to turn Meredith into an "ultimate evil". That was a cope out.

I don't consider the storyline to be a gameplay formula; gameplay is pretty much independent of story line. When I first heard the premise of DA2, I liked the idea of DA2's story line better than DA:O; it sounded more original and interesting.  Last year, I commented that I would like to see DA2 as "Orzammar writ large", and I thought maybe it would be like that. Since there was no overwhelming evil to fight, I was envisioning factional conflicts and political intrigue and more choice, rather than less.  Since it was set primarily an urban environment, I thought there would be more emphasis on stealth and non-violent resolutions of conflict .  I love GMing urban campaigns because it isn't (or shouldn't be) practical for the party to just murder their opposition as a solution to all problems.  Unfortunately, that wasn't the game I got.

It drives me up the wall when, because I am critical of DA2, people assume I just want to be the great hero who saves the world.  I just wanted my Hawke to be able to try to do something constructive.  The only time Hawke is allowed to pursue any coherent goal is in Act 1, when he's trying to accumulate money. 

Modifié par maxernst, 21 novembre 2011 - 04:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

It drives me up the wall when, because I am critical of DA2, people assume I just want to be the great hero who saves the world.  I just wanted my Hawke to be able to try to do something constructive.  The only time Hawke is allowed to pursue any coherent goal is in Act 1, when he's trying to accumulate money. 

I agree entirely.  DA2's story was the thing I liked about it.

The problem is, I think, that many people see the story as the biggest difference between the two games, so if you like one and not the other then you must favour the story of your preferred game.

But that's not true.  I think DA2's story is better than DAO's story.  DA2's story just doesn't happen to be in a game that's fun to play.

[Sylvianus]

Hawk was totally boring as hell. I never thought I would think something like that about a random hero. That is the first time in my life. Also, DA2's story wasn't really interesting nor epic, and not deep enough. Crazy mages against bad templars, security against freedom, boo. Many Npc not at all interesting, incompetent, romances mediocre. Companions, were fine however, but not better than those of DAO.

But I will stop here. No the story could have saved the game with its issues if it would have been good to me.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 21 novembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Persephone]

Atakuma wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

Why do Bioware want their games to be the exact same thing as 50 other games that came out this year?

Name one game that is the exact same thing as DA2.

Seconded. Try as I might, I cannot find any games to fit the bill.

[alex90c]

Persephone wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

Why do Bioware want their games to be the exact same thing as 50 other games that came out this year?

Name one game that is the exact same thing as DA2.

Seconded. Try as I might, I cannot find any games to fit the bill.

Tempted to come up with something snarky but I can't be arsed.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

It drives me up the wall when, because I am critical of DA2, people assume I just want to be the great hero who saves the world.  I just wanted my Hawke to be able to try to do something constructive.  The only time Hawke is allowed to pursue any coherent goal is in Act 1, when he's trying to accumulate money. 

I agree entirely.  DA2's story was the thing I liked about it.

The problem is, I think, that many people see the story as the biggest difference between the two games, so if you like one and not the other then you must favour the story of your preferred game.

But that's not true.  I think DA2's story is better than DAO's story.  DA2's story just doesn't happen to be in a game that's fun to play.

Criticism (positive and negative) of a cRPG is necessary for the developers to see what could be improved on and what was good in the game. Defending your position on a game is fine as long as it is done in a reasonable and respectful manner. I may not agree with a particulat position but if the person can give a reasoned explaination for that position it gives me pause to think and I give it due consideration.  

maxernst, Sylvius the Mad, Knight of Phoenix and others on this forum take the time to state their position in a reasoned fashion and explain where they diifer or agree on a position I hold. A civil discussion can take place. We will not convince each other one way or the other, but at least we can understand each other and agree to disagree.

I think the BG games are excellent cRPgs. But that does not blind me to their faults or a lot of the faults in many cRPGs. I like DAO and DA2. I think Bioware could have done much more with the story and gameplay of DA2. I like Alternate Reality even though I had BG gamers tell me the premise seems silly. You are a character who has been aducted by aliens and relocated into a fantasy setting for their amusement. Until I remind them that BG is about a character who is the offspring of the Bhaal Lord of Murder.

The reason I see gamers so vehement in their position and trying to shout down the other side is because they are afraid they will not get the game they want from Bioware. Bioware is going to produce the game they want to produce with fan input. Bioware is going to allow the creative juices to flow hopefully. Some gamers may like the results others may not and still others will be indifferent.

Innovation and creativity must be allowed to flow otherwise we would all still be playing Chainmail.
Remember this whole post is my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. YMMV.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

I think you guys, when you made Baldur's Gate, came really lose to making the perfect CRPG.

But you've been moving in the wrong direction ever since.  So, in order to get you back on the right track, I need to push you back toward the things you used to do, and once you're there we can head off in the proper direction to actually improve something.

Along the way, though, you have stumbled upon significant improvements.  NWN's engine and inventory management were better than BG's, and the alternate hotbar system was pure genius (why you don't use that in every game you make now I don't understand).  And in DAO you finally created a sensible lore-backed setting that was your own design, so that you could work with more freedom within a coherent framework (a framework you mostly threw away in DA2, I might add).  And I think the vehicle system you developed for ME was terrific, and could be applicable to many different kinds of games, including fantasy RPGs.  is the Mako really that different from a horse?

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
*Angst about Bioware*
So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

I think you guys, when you made Baldur's Gate, came really lose to making the perfect CRPG.

But you've been moving in the wrong direction ever since.  So, in order to get you back on the right track, I need to push you back toward the things you used to do, and once you're there we can head off in the proper direction to actually improve something. Is the Mako really that different from a horse?

Let's skip over the condescending factor (and spelling error), where things have apparently been devolving since the start (And Bioware knows from their sales that this statement is not true anyway.

Amusingly enough, many people were dissatisfied with the use of the Mako and the implementation of the interplanetary sidequests, hence its removal in ME2, and the introduction of the smoother-handling Hammerhead. What of that?

In truth, we already know the actual answer to the question.  It's motsly rooted in people wearing rose-colored glasses, and never being able to replicate that "first time" they experienced. As technology evolves more and more, we simply go farther away from that magical memory when we were introduced to something completely new and untried, if they were to go to their roots they would be criticized for doing the same thing over and over again (very few people make a market out of nostaliga gaming). Maybe a handful of people would enjoy a direct sequel to the very original, but the ones who harp over and over "go back to your roots" seem to think they hold more ownership over the game than the people who actually made it, just because of the good times they had.

Really, who gives credence to the indie-rockers who sit there complaining about old bands changing their music to be more popular (or heaven forbid, have gotten tired of making the same thing over and over) so they just call it trash or they refer to the band as  a bunch of dirty evil sell outs. It's exactly like that, only applied to video games.

Modifié par Riknas, 21 novembre 2011 - 10:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Let's skip over the condescending factor (and spelling error), where things have apparently been devolving since the start (And Bioware knows from their sales that this statement is not true anyway.

Holy non sequiter, Batman.

Amusingly enough, many people were dissatisfied with the use of the Mako and the implementation of the interplanetary sidequests, hence its removal in ME2, and the introduction of the smoother-handling Hammerhead. What of that?

Again, I fail to see the relevance.

I like the Mako because it worked well in environments that didn't feature obvious roads.  The Hammerhead environments were contrived.  Yes, the plot worlds in ME had clear roads (Noveria and Feros most obviously), and the BDtS moon was basically one big parking lot, but the uncharted worlds didn't feel like they were meant to be accessible.  The uncharted worlds were good design (and, frankly, my favourite part of ME).

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Amusingly enough, many people were dissatisfied with the use of the Mako and the implementation of the interplanetary sidequests, hence its removal in ME2, and the introduction of the smoother-handling Hammerhead. What of that?

Again, I fail to see the relevance.

I like the Mako because it worked well in environments that didn't feature obvious roads.  The Hammerhead environments were contrived.  Yes, the plot worlds in ME had clear roads (Noveria and Feros most obviously), and the BDtS moon was basically one big parking lot, but the uncharted worlds didn't feel like they were meant to be accessible.  The uncharted worlds were good design (and, frankly, my favourite part of ME).

Sorry to hear that, pay more attention then.

I had trouble deciphering what you liked about the vehicle system, other than that it was, "Good", and the system is similar to that of a horse, you also chose to use the Mako as the forerunner over the Hammerhead, I was having trouble figuring out why. First, other than the fact you can ride a horse, and 'ride' the Mako, the list of similarities is...y'know. One thing. Maybe you can make a horse jump? I guess that's two. A horse is like the Mako the way a town is like a country. You can draw comparisons, sure, but the management is different.

You are having a problem supporting your ideas, because you created a fact out of opinions. You say "This is good," (Baldur's Gate, and the Mako).  You forgot to mention why.

Most people can find consensus that Baldur's Gate was good, and I agree. However the uncharted worlds were lacking. Reusable environments with reusable discovery items. Don't get me wrong, it was kind of cool, but it was just a hassle to get around to, once you've done it once, you've got it for the next twenty planets.

That said, a better alternative would have been Mass Effect open world maps that you could traverse using the Hammerhead. Reusable environments are better lent to Sci-fi and space because of how much ground you can cover.

You could not add horses to Dragon Age just by adding the first vehicle system (assuming we include the Mako and the environments as part of the same package).

Edit: Sorry,. you can't make it good by just adding the first vehicle system.

Modifié par Riknas, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

Sorry to hear that, pay more attention then.

You were appealing to the unpopularity of a mechanic as evidence of its lack of quality.  There's no reason at all to conflate those two things.

I had trouble deciphering what you liked about the vehicle system, other than that it was, "Good", and the system is similar to that of a horse, you also chose to use the Mako as the forerunner over the Hammerhead, I was having trouble figuring out why.

That's not really my concern.  I didn't explain why I liked the Mako, initially, because it wasn't a salient point.  My point was that there are systems that have been introduced since BG which are good.  As such, I am not suggesting we through out everything new in favour of the features from a game from thirteen years ago.

Now you're addressing something entirely tangential to the discussion at hand, and I simply don't care to continue in that direction.

The problem isn't that I didn't support my argument.  The problem is that you misidentified my argument.

Most people can find consensus that Baldur's Gate was good, and I agree.

Consensus is irrelevant.

[AlexXIV]

The only good thing about Baldur's Gate was the epic length and that I already was in love with Forgotten Realms™ literature.  The RPG itself wasn't really much compared to others. I mean we were really just running around killing stuff in different ways, or not?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The important question is, "Why were you running around killing things?"

Also, you weren't always just killing things. Often you were talking to people, or exploring.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's not really my concern.

That's also unfortunate, but coherency is important, of course I won't stop you from continuing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The problem isn't that I didn't support my argument.  The problem is that you misidentified my argument.

Talk gibberish if you'd really prefer, without support it means nothing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Consensus is irrelevant.

If consensus means nothing you don't need to be here, but we both know that's not true. You've said it yourself that you need to convince other people to your way of thinking to make a difference.

Consensus is everything.

[Realmzmaster]

Consensus to the group maybe everything. Consensus to the individual can be irrelevant. The only opinion that has to matter to the individual is the individual's own opinion. The majority of the individuals must consent to the group opinion to have consensus even then that does not necessarily mean complete agreement with that opinion. The ideal of consensus is to have unanimity, but that does not mean uniformity.

[blothulfur]

I liked the Baldurs gate series and all but to vote for it ahead of the Ultima series is a fargin travesty.

[TanyaT]

I loved BG series, played them over and over.
One thing I really enjoyed was being able to put in my own voices for the main character's expostulations ... in the end we settled on Willow (from Buffy )

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The important question is, "Why were you running around killing things?"

Also, you weren't always just killing things. Often you were talking to people, or exploring.

I like exploring interesting places. Like places of power or knowledge. But I remember alot of BG2 was just running around and clearing the 'fog of war' or what it is called so you can see a bright colorful map. The space was huge but 2D, so not really so much work for the designers. Unless you are the guy/gal who painted the landscape. I would prefer less exploration in more intersting places than the other way round. Also, if you tried Skyrim already, nowadays crpgs can actually feel better than life, so that's something that should be considered standard in a couple of years anyway.

I'd guess 95% of the encounters were hostile. So you were killing them for that reason alone. Ok there were talking encounters to. But what I generally miss in Bioware games are optional ways to solve problems. Puzzles, stealth, maybe mascarade, persuasion, intimidation, etc. You should think if you are cutting through the enemies for a while you even get some sort of reputation after a while and people recognize you and don't throw their life away by attacking you even though they never had a chance, for example.

It's just too  much combat for me. I like Fallout better because you have more options. Funny enough people call it a 'shooter' when I as a stealth type have made it a habit to try to avoid killing by not being seen or backstabbing. Something that actually works in Fallout while in Bioware games you have to hope for the murder knife.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 novembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[maxernst]

AlexXIV wrote...

I'd guess 95% of the encounters were hostile. So you were killing them for that reason alone. Ok there were talking encounters to. But what I generally miss in Bioware games are optional ways to solve problems. Puzzles, stealth, maybe mascarade, persuasion, intimidation, etc. You should think if you are cutting through the enemies for a while you even get some sort of reputation after a while and people recognize you and don't throw their life away by attacking you even though they never had a chance, for example.

It's just too  much combat for me. I like Fallout better because you have more options. Funny enough people call it a 'shooter' when I as a stealth type have made it a habit to try to avoid killing by not being seen or backstabbing. Something that actually works in Fallout while in Bioware games you have to hope for the murder knife.

Oh, I agree, and all Bioware games are too combat-heavy for my taste, and that's why I lean to Planescape:Torment and Fallout slightly over BG2.  But there was still more non-combat gameplay in BG2, or DA:O for that matter, than in DA2.  Even quest lines like the otherwise charming one to bring Aveline and Donnic together involved a pile of superfluous combat, and I don't recall being attacked at random on the streets of Athkatla as frequently as you are in Kirkwall.

Modifié par maxernst, 22 novembre 2011 - 06:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riknas wrote...

If consensus means nothing you don't need to be here, but we both know that's not true. You've said it yourself that you need to convince other people to your way of thinking to make a difference.

Consensus is everything.

You're applying prescriptive weight to consensus, effectively employing argumentum ad popularum.  Unfrotunately for you, that people generally believe something to be true does not make it so.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexXIV wrote...

I like exploring interesting places. Like places of power or knowledge. But I remember alot of BG2 was just running around and clearing the 'fog of war' or what it is called so you can see a bright colorful map. The space was huge but 2D, so not really so much work for the designers.

We weren't taking about BG2.  We were talking about BG.   BG had much more exploration thatn BG2 because you could visit new maps without a quest-related reason to go there.  Exploration in BG2 was limited to a single map at a time, and to find a new map to explore you needed to have a directed reason to be there.

BG required no such thing.  That's what I'd like to see BioWare return to (and they did, to some degree, with ME's uncharted worlds, which I think were the best part of ME).

[devSin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I think the vehicle system you developed for ME was terrific, and could be applicable to many different kinds of games, including fantasy RPGs.  is the Mako really that different from a horse?

As far as I'm aware, they got this pretty much for free. Go, go, Unreal Engine!

The question then is if you'd want DA to look and play more like ME in order have to horse-model cars.

Modifié par devSin, 22 novembre 2011 - 08:15 .