283 réponses à ce sujet

[Gunderic]

Wulfram wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Because his character traits didn't come off as written to emphasize his weakness, or at least not to me.

He's an unselfconfident virgin with a difficult childhood who naturally defers to the PC

I agree with that. Alistair is kind of the male counterpart of all the other LI that fall under this archetype.

And I also agree that the fumbling/geeky girl archetype is getting kind of tired, and needs to be scrapped or at least watered down.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Oh yes, so much more tiresome than the prickly girl or the easy girl or the princess girl? LoL.

[Gunderic]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Let's put it this way - there's a difference between a character with weaknesses and a character written as weak.

Are you sure the reason you percieve the men to be have weaknesses and the women to be weak is because of the writing and not your own preconceptions?

Bioware writes excellent male and female characters who have weaknesses but are not weak. IMO you could make a much better case that Tali would fall into this category if we remove her romance subplot from the discussion*. Re: romance subplots, there's a huge difference between "I'm attracted to you but have no idea how to go about following up on that attraction" and "lol ur so perfect I have a giant crush on u ur so much better then me."

That's every party member in a BioWare, pretty much. LI or not.

Jade Empire is the worst offender in this. I mean seriously guys, I didn't even do much to anything and you're already kissing the floor I'm walking on? My character, if I had full control over it, would probably want to get away from those weirdos worshipping him/her as soon as possible.

I mean, pretty much all BioWare games want to make you seem as the big hero who saves the day, and I accept that. Don't think that'll change anytime soon, but really, I'm fine with being awesome. Just make it actually rewarding to become awesome. Don't have party members always treat the player character as being deserving of respect by default.

[Gunderic]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Oh yes, so much more tiresome than the prickly girl or the easy girl or the princess girl? LoL.

What?

[Blablabla79]

Mr Fixit wrote...

I find it very interesting that all those reviewing mags and sites that originally praised DA2 to no end, suddenly feel that the game is disappointing. Where were they 9 months ago, when their timely reviews actually meant something to the prospective buyer?

That is the socalled "Rybicki Maneuver", practically every mainstream game "review" site does it with AAA titles. You can find a description of the maneuver here: http://www.nma-fallo...le.php?id=37708

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

LinksOcarina wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I think the role-playing genre will survive. I'm just not so sure about Bioware. They seem to have completely lost touch with what RPG players want.

Way to go using your own blog to support an unfounded argument. I especially love how you take developer statements out of context and have the arrogance to presume that you speak for everyone who enjoys RPGs, while simultaneously making offensive generalizations about anyone who enjoys other genres, with no consideration for the fact that those demographics can and frequently do crossover.

Yes plaintiff. It's called an "opinion". And so far the numbers support it.

I stand by my post. AAA mainstream gamers are a bucnch of knuckleheads who are too stupid to realize they are just buying reskins of the same game over and over agian. RPG's will never crossover into that market. RPG elements will be, and have been, succesfully tacked on to knucklehead favorites (FPS, racing, and sports games) but RPG's themselves just don't interest that market and never will.

Your opinion however is so assinine (after reading your blog) I can't help but comment on how wrong you really are...

Snip

Did I step on a nerve?

Is it elitist? Yes. Yes it is. But IMO it also happens to be true. I realize that referring to the mass market as knuckleheads may not be PC but I think you'll find truth often finds it's way outside what is poitically correct.

I'm not going to bandy words with you, Links. My "assinine" opinion is posted for the world to see. I'd just as sooon wait and have it be judged by the passage of time. If RPGs ever make it out into the mass market (without being dumbed down and tacked on to an FPS or racer) then I guess you'll have proved me wrong.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

FWIW, I think EA publishes some of the most tactically inclined party based Action RPGs with the deepest character creation systems around. So I wouldn't bash EA or BioWare on that front.

I mean, look at Bethesda, look at CDPR, they both make great games, but no one else does what they do - a solid character system anchored on statistics (not abilities) and classes with gameplay based on party tactics and micromanagement, as well as a relatively dynamic story that allows the player to make decisions that affect the narrative based on what they do during important events.

Giving them a plethora of roleplaying options, not just in the character creator, but in how they build their character for success and how they progress in the game's narrative.

They have also done this in a way that doesn't de-emphasize the action part of things, allowing the player to really feel apart of what's going on, and not disconnected to the events going on around them.

So kudos to them.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Or does no one play Career Mode in any of EA's Sports games?

Modifié par mrcrusty, 18 décembre 2011 - 11:19 .

[DragonRageGT]

Hawke was going to be a Hero... then he took an arrow in his knee!

[Chromie]

mrcrusty wrote...

That's it Crusty time for me to get my pitchfork and kill a troll. 

[Monica83]

RageGT wrote...

Hawke was going to be a Hero... then he took an arrow in his knee!

WIN

but not an arrow a spear!

[Killjoy Cutter]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I think the role-playing genre will survive. I'm just not so sure about Bioware. They seem to have completely lost touch with what RPG players want.

Way to go using your own blog to support an unfounded argument. I especially love how you take developer statements out of context and have the arrogance to presume that you speak for everyone who enjoys RPGs, while simultaneously making offensive generalizations about anyone who enjoys other genres, with no consideration for the fact that those demographics can and frequently do crossover.

Yes plaintiff. It's called an "opinion". And so far the numbers support it.

I stand by my post. AAA mainstream gamers are a bucnch of knuckleheads who are too stupid to realize they are just buying reskins of the same game over and over agian. RPG's will never crossover into that market. RPG elements will be, and have been, succesfully tacked on to knucklehead favorites (FPS, racing, and sports games) but RPG's themselves just don't interest that market and never will.

Your opinion however is so assinine (after reading your blog) I can't help but comment on how wrong you really are...

Snip

Did I step on a nerve?

Is it elitist? Yes. Yes it is. But IMO it also happens to be true. I realize that referring to the mass market as knuckleheads may not be PC but I think you'll find truth often finds it's way outside what is poitically correct.

I'm not going to bandy words with you, Links. My "assinine" opinion is posted for the world to see. I'd just as sooon wait and have it be judged by the passage of time. If RPGs ever make it out into the mass market (without being dumbed down and tacked on to an FPS or racer) then I guess you'll have proved me wrong.

It is hard to not think of the mass market as knuckleheads when Survivor and Britany Spears and Justin Bieber and Twilight and Jersey Shore are so damn popular.

[LinksOcarina]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Did I step on a nerve?

Is it elitist? Yes. Yes it is. But IMO it also happens to be true. I realize that referring to the mass market as knuckleheads may not be PC but I think you'll find truth often finds it's way outside what is poitically correct.

I'm not going to bandy words with you, Links. My "assinine" opinion is posted for the world to see. I'd just as sooon wait and have it be judged by the passage of time. If RPGs ever make it out into the mass market (without being dumbed down and tacked on to an FPS or racer) then I guess you'll have proved me wrong.

You didn't personally step on a nerve. The blog did. That blog just pissed me off because it is an opinion that I detest, the kind that is baseless.

It's the teacher in me.

And i'm kind of dissapointed that you won't discuss this further, since you know, you should be able to defend the opinion you make instead of just leaving it out there and then mocking some people for disagreeing with you. But thats your choice I won't bother you there.

But next time, if you really want to go after mass-market, look at Skyrim. THAT is mass market, yet it is also a role-playing experience. Or World of Warcraft and other successful MMORPGs. Do you even see them as bad games because of the mass-market push? They have faults, but they also did wonders for all kinds of RPGS in the long run. Or are they ok, good RPGs for different type of people with better mechanics (in some cases) than Dragon Age II?

Look, you believe what you want. In the end, it is your opinion. but to borrow a page from your book, its an opinion I can't respect because, as I said it is assinine, and ultimately, wrong.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 18 décembre 2011 - 08:15 .

[jbrand2002uk]

So the mass market would by your analysis be teenage boys and girls with no taste spending all day playing hows your father ?

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

OK, we don't have a lot of room for agreement here. I don't consider MMO's RPGs in any way shape or form. They certainly provide a setting that could be used for role playing, but only if you don't mind being mercilessly griefed and tormented by the rank and file players.

Just because it says RPG on the box doesn't make it so.

As for the Elder Scrolls, it also reinforces my opinion. These games are a particular work of genius on Bethesda's part. It is, in effect, an RPG disguised as an FPS. Personally I'm not a big fan the Elder Scrolls. The RP element is way too light for me. I like a party dynamic, and the conversations are all rather shallow and bland. But I can ceraintainly see the appeal to players who don't want to have to think too much about all that pesky role playing, and I do consider it an RPG.

To my mind the difference is in the combat mechanic. In an RPG the charater's skills determine a hit or miss, wheras in an FPS hits and misses are determined by whether or not the taget is in the "crosshairs" so to speak. By this standard I do consider ES an RPG.

ME... not so much...

Let the flames begin. <_<

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 18 décembre 2011 - 08:37 .

[LinksOcarina]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

OK, we don't have a lot of room for agreement here. I don't consider MMO's RPGs in any way shape or form. They certainly provide a setting that could be used for role playing, but only if you don't mind being mercilessly griefed and tormented by the rank and file players.

As for the Elder Scrolls, it also reinforces my opinion. These games are a particular work of genius on Bethesda's part. It is, in effect, an RPG disguised as an FPS. Personally I'm not a big fan the Elder Scrolls. The RP element is way too light for me. I like a party dynamic, and the conversations are all rather shallow and bland.

We agree more than you think, I personally am not a fan of the Elder Scrolls games because tof the lack of dynamics with companions, shallow conversations, and forgotten lore that is usually ignored.

But it is still and RPG because you can play the game the way you want, just like you can paly MMO's the way you want (griefing aside, people are dicks sometimes) or other RPG's in various forms. Through the mechanics it is one too. I may not like the unbalance in the skill trees, but the fact that I can choose to be good at specific skills for my character lets me fit the role I want to play as.

This leads me to an important question then for you dude. What is a Role Playing Game?

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

No. Not that tired old flame war again. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

[Killjoy Cutter]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

So the mass market would by your analysis be teenage boys and girls with no taste spending all day playing hows your father ?

(Who's?)

Judging by what is made and how it is marketed, that is the most obvious conclusion, yes.

[Morroian]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

So the mass market would by your analysis be teenage boys and girls with no taste spending all day playing hows your father ?

And apparently idiots don't play rpgs, yet look at the sales of Skyrim.

[Firky]

Morroian wrote...

And apparently idiots don't play rpgs, yet look at the sales of Skyrim.

I don't get it. So the number of people who aren't idiots in the world are now less than the sales of Skyrim? (Which is what - approaching 10 million? I have no idea.)

But I really don't get the argument, anyway. The flip side seems to be that anyone who enjoyed DA2 is an idiot, or that DA2 is made for idiots or non-RPG fans. I don't feel like an idiot or someone who doesn't like RPGs .....

(I get that DA2 alienated a proportion of RPG fans, but not all. The argument just feels too absolute.)

Modifié par Firky, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:00 .

[Il Divo]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Did I step on a nerve?

Is it elitist? Yes. Yes it is. But IMO it also happens to be true. I realize that referring to the mass market as knuckleheads may not be PC but I think you'll find truth often finds it's way outside what is poitically correct.

I'm not going to bandy words with you, Links. My "assinine" opinion is posted for the world to see. I'd just as sooon wait and have it be judged by the passage of time. If RPGs ever make it out into the mass market (without being dumbed down and tacked on to an FPS or racer) then I guess you'll have proved me wrong.

Your blog was proven wrong when DA:O broke 3 million sales. Actually, you were proven wrong when it broke a million sales. When I think about it more, the mere existence of the internet pretty much proves you wrong. There are alot of idiots, believe it or not, and they have played Dragon Age: Origins. Idiots will play every genre of gaming, you see. Single-player RPGs just don't have the same reputation because they're single-player, compared to the mass aggregate of the CoD crowd playing on Xbox Live, which makes it a substantially easier target.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:02 .

[LinksOcarina]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

No. Not that tired old flame war again. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

How is this a tired old flame war? It's a simple question with numerous answers to it, but some absolute truths.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 18 décembre 2011 - 10:14 .

[brightblueink]

Gunderic wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Because his character traits didn't come off as written to emphasize his weakness, or at least not to me.

He's an unselfconfident virgin with a difficult childhood who naturally defers to the PC

I agree with that. Alistair is kind of the male counterpart of all the other LI that fall under this archetype.

And I also agree that the fumbling/geeky girl archetype is getting kind of tired, and needs to be scrapped or at least watered down.

Man, but I like the fumbling, geeky characters. Those are almost always some of my favorites.
I mean, I can understand why people might get bored with those character types, but there are fumbling, geeky people in real life, so I don't think that a character is automatically poorly written (or sexist) if they have those traits. Particularly since there's plenty of male characters like that, too. Alistair's just one of them. Kaiden can come across that way, too. And both of those characters are pretty popular among girls AFAIK.

As a girl, I have absolutely no problem with a guy finding Tali or Merrill cute. I think they're cute, too. I also think they're strong characters, both in the sense that they're good fighters with a backbone and in the sense that they're well written, fully fleshed out characters with both strengths and flaws. When women say we want more "strong female characters" we don't mean that we want a character to be able to fight well or be tough, although characters like that are great, too. But what we really want--or at least, what I really want--is well-written female characters. I don't care if a character is a homemaker that likes to bake cookies, as long as she has a fully fleshed out personality with a set of dreams, desires, fears, strengths and weaknesses. If a female character is a badass, but there's nothing more to her besides that, I find her pretty uninteresting. Luckily, I don't think Bioware's ever created a character like that. (That being said, Aveline is probably my favorite female character in DA2, partially because she can have a tender, caring side and gets to kick large amounts of ass.)

[AmstradHero]

LinksOcarina wrote...
We gave Witcher 2 a 9/10, and Skyrim an 8/10, if it matters. Both the PC versions were reviewed by the same writer and he did enjoy them a lot. If I had to review them they would be an 8 and 7 respectively from my experience. Hell, for Skyrim I wrote a six page editorial on why it was a fun game but not GOTY material, and got a lot of flak for that because I apparently nit-picked the fact that the skill-tree system is fundamentally flawed and the games lore and quest-lines were devoid of any emotional weight.

Whoa, hold up there...  Skill-tree system is fundamentally flawed? Game's lore devoid of any emotional weight? I'm almost keen to see a link to this. I could potentially understand some possible issues with the skill tree system, though on the whole, I'd say it's a lot better than many contemporaries, and a billion times better than the utterly ridiculous levelling system from Morrowind and Oblivion that I have always thought was utterly asinine.

If you're going to argue with the lore being devoid or emotional weight or depth... I'm sorry, but the failing there is entirely on YOU as a player rather than the game itself. Skyrim oozes and drips lore out of every single pore. The constant struggle between Stormcloaks, Empire and Forsworn, individual stories that so frequently tie into the history of the world or even reference events of previous games, not to mention the vast number of books recounting Tamriel's history... If you've missed this, then I'm sorry, but you simply don't care about lore. Quest design and emotional impact of individual quests is not something that Elder Scrolls have ever excelled at, and I'll agree that apart from a few rare cases, you don't become emotionally invested. However, to even contemplate attacking Skyrim for failings in its lore is horrendously shortsighted and indicates to me that you weren't even trying to pay attention to the details of the world.

I can pick far more egregious and numerous design flaws in The Witcher games, so while I respect CDPR for being another contender in the RPG market, I simply can't get into their games or recommend them to people.

LinksOcarina wrote...
One more thing, good reviewers don't have personalized tastes when they write. I love RPG's and strategy games, but my job when I review something is to critically judge it based on its good points, bad points, artistic value, story value, etc. My personal tastes shouldn't matter, and to objectively write a review, I need to keep all of that out of the window. 

Not meaning to attack journalistic integrity here, but reviewers are still people. People have inherent bias, and that bias colours their opinion. This might come down to personal preferences, or even their personal expectations of the game beforehand - see the difference between US and EU reviews of Alpha Protocol. I come down FIRMLY on the side of EU reviewers, almost every review I read bashing the game read as though the reviewer expected "Mass Effect as a Modern Spy Game"!

Every reviewer is influenced by their personal bias, even if they know they have to try and keep it out. Even if you do, you're still frequently comparing apples to oranges across games. You like The Witcher and would rate it more highly than Skyrim, yet I'd rate The Witcher worse than Alpha Protocol - and that would be based entirely on design issues.

Even compare DAO and DA2 - I found DA2 to be more "fun", but ultimately I felt it was a less enjoyable experience. I'd be much happier to go back and play DAO again, despite that it gets fairly tedious at times (Fade & Deep Roads), then replay DA2. DA2 is plagued by design flaws (though still suffers from fewer than TW1), but I didn't have the "oh, for crying out loud, when will these damned brown Deep Roads end?" pain I did in DAO.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
It is hard to not think of the mass market as knuckleheads when Survivor and Britany Spears and Justin Bieber and Twilight and Jersey Shore are so damn popular.

And it's hard to take your opinion seriously when your signature block

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Origin is spyware.  Don't buy another EA game without reading this thread.
(And look, they locked the thread, what a surprise...)

paints EA as the bad guy when the reason the thread was locked was because EA-haters were equating Origin with the Holocaust and war crimes. Or did you not read that part?

Modifié par AmstradHero, 18 décembre 2011 - 11:25 .

[Monica83]

But it is.. EA is always quantity and not quality.. EA is good only for sport and shoters game.. DA2 it's a prof (and also the related marketing lies) that EA is not interested to make rpg but only to make something similiar for the masses...

And not i don't believe in post like "EA don't tell us what to do" and then you read Bioware an EA division...Im also tired that rpg's continue to be dumbed down only with the goal to make rpg for people that dislike rpg's..

We are lucky that other company don't sold themself and stayed loyal to their fanbase.. Like Bethsheeda or CD Project red...

The witcher 2 is a nice rpg.. A product of quality...
Skyrim maybe don't have complex dialogues or companion but it still work as a rpg because is immersive i maded with care..And yes you can roleplay any character you want in skyrim..

Dragon age 2? Just laughtable and not because is different from origins but because is a game shoveled out and rushed and also poor poor of content.. A bad game..

And yes i agree with urk.. I see he's point .. It's sad.. But this company is not the same quality company of the past.. They lost all the credibility in my eyes.. And for good reason.. Then for now i will whait and see if bioware returns at the old quality.. But under EA i don't think is possible..

Origins?... Never istalled it never want it and if is required to make works some games i just don't buy the game...

[LinksOcarina]

AmstradHero wrote...

Whoa, hold up there...  Skill-tree system is fundamentally flawed? Game's lore devoid of any emotional weight? I'm almost keen to see a link to this. I could potentially understand some possible issues with the skill tree system, though on the whole, I'd say it's a lot better than many contemporaries, and a billion times better than the utterly ridiculous levelling system from Morrowind and Oblivion that I have always thought was utterly asinine.

If you're going to argue with the lore being devoid or emotional weight or depth... I'm sorry, but the failing there is entirely on YOU as a player rather than the game itself. Skyrim oozes and drips lore out of every single pore. The constant struggle between Stormcloaks, Empire and Forsworn, individual stories that so frequently tie into the history of the world or even reference events of previous games, not to mention the vast number of books recounting Tamriel's history... If you've missed this, then I'm sorry, but you simply don't care about lore. Quest design and emotional impact of individual quests is not something that Elder Scrolls have ever excelled at, and I'll agree that apart from a few rare cases, you don't become emotionally invested. However, to even contemplate attacking Skyrim for failings in its lore is horrendously shortsighted and indicates to me that you weren't even trying to pay attention to the details of the world.

I can pick far more egregious and numerous design flaws in The Witcher games, so while I respect CDPR for being another contender in the RPG market, I simply can't get into their games or recommend them to people.

LinksOcarina wrote...
One more thing, good reviewers don't have personalized tastes when they write. I love RPG's and strategy games, but my job when I review something is to critically judge it based on its good points, bad points, artistic value, story value, etc. My personal tastes shouldn't matter, and to objectively write a review, I need to keep all of that out of the window. 

Not meaning to attack journalistic integrity here, but reviewers are still people. People have inherent bias, and that bias colours their opinion. This might come down to personal preferences, or even their personal expectations of the game beforehand - see the difference between US and EU reviews of Alpha Protocol. I come down FIRMLY on the side of EU reviewers, almost every review I read bashing the game read as though the reviewer expected "Mass Effect as a Modern Spy Game"!

Every reviewer is influenced by their personal bias, even if they know they have to try and keep it out. Even if you do, you're still frequently comparing apples to oranges across games. You like The Witcher and would rate it more highly than Skyrim, yet I'd rate The Witcher worse than Alpha Protocol - and that would be based entirely on design issues.

Even compare DAO and DA2 - I found DA2 to be more "fun", but ultimately I felt it was a less enjoyable experience. I'd be much happier to go back and play DAO again, despite that it gets fairly tedious at times (Fade & Deep Roads), then replay DA2. DA2 is plagued by design flaws (though still suffers from fewer than TW1), but I didn't have the "oh, for crying out loud, when will these damned brown Deep Roads end?" pain I did in DAO.

This is old, but let me clarify it once more.

1. For the website I work for, I did not review either The Witcher 2 or Skyrim. 

2. I never said that the skill tree system is worse than the old system in Morrowind and Oblivion, I just said it is also broken and flawed. 

3. The lore is not a fault of my own, its a fault of Bethesda. Trust me when I say that one dude. 

I can just point you to where I wrote my editorial, but since you asked nicely, here is the abridged version of the long editorial I did write about this for you. (or you can skip to the link. Your choice i'm nice like that.)

First off, the lore is never explained, at least beforehand. Normally this is not a big deal in Elder Scrolls because each game before Skyrim was within around 40  years of each other in the third era. However, Skyrim takes place 200 years later, in 201 4E. A lot of lore has happened since then, a lot of it would be considered common knowledge that you have to find out on your own. 

Things like the blades, that makes sense that they are no longer around. Same with the Greybeards. But other things in-game, WORLD EVENTS THAT EFFECT TAMRIEL, you need to figure out for your own, and considering the amount of stuff that has happened in 200 years, it should have a crash course on the conflict, or at least make the conflict more apparant thant it was. 

And a lot of it is more important to the richness you talk about. For example, the Thalmor and the Aldmeri Dominion beating the tar out of the Imperials, forcing them to sign the Concordt in 175 4E. And yet, the effects of the Condcort are only really seen in the Stormcloak Rebellion that takes place. effects that are superficial at best and totally based on here-say, a questline that is regulated into the misc. pile when it should be inter-twined with the main story.

And now I know, there is a quest that does inter-twine it once. But its so late in the main story quest, and is more akin to appeasing two idiots with shiny objects than solving anything constructive, so it is at best, a fragile alliance that could have been interesting if I actually gave a damn about it.

Add to this the fact that Elswyr is now two different countries technically, Vvardenfell was destroyed by Red mountain anyway (meaning Morrowind as a game was totally pointless since you were the prophsesized Nevararine that would defend Vvardenfel, and the world, from destruction), the Thalmor are seldom seen in Skyrim despite having vast influence in the background, with the exception of a few quests, and Hammerfell is now independent, thats a lot to take in with the games second-hand way of showing information.

The Stormcloak and Empire struggle? Pointless. The forsworn, a bit more interesting but overall pointless in the end. Why?  Because they are both insignificant events that, yes you can participate in, but are devoid of any impact because you are dropped into the world randomly.

Basically, the lore is forgotten. You learn it as you go, and what is taught is a severe lack of consistancy, urgency, and caring about it. The lore lacks any attachment and weight to it, which makes a lot of the conflicts drama-less and boring even more than they are.