155 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

Once again, I was commenting on your response to the quote. It seemed odd to me. The bolded portion there is an attempt to explain why it seems odd to me. Also, your definition of attributes doesn't seem to be the same as the other poster's definition of the word. Heck, by your definition, it would seem like every game uses attributes, included those action games like Skyrim and Kingdom Hearts.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I believe that a small level limit (say 20 or 25) and the ability to max-out without farming or that many sidequests can do the trick. If the main plot on its own almost maxes your level, you do not have much incentive, XP wise, to do sidequests.

I personally prefer subplots to isolated sidequests. Subplots with choices and such that could accomodate many personalities and playing styles. While it wouldn't fix the problem entirely, it would allow for more variety and would have more gravity than silly sidequests that you have little reason to care about.

EDIT: of course would they be willing to put a lot of effort and money into optional subplots? Probably not.

While I'm not a fan of level caps (actually I kind of hate them), it's certainly an effective way of removing the "punishement" of missing out on valuable XP for not doing a side quest. If they design the game in a way that the side quests only yield small XP gains (with the main quests being enough to reach close to max level) and mostly loot rewards, that would also help.

I also prefer subplots as they feel more relevant to the big picture, though a few random sidequests are always nice.

And yes, that's the big question of course. Given their history odds are probably not indeed and to be honest I can understand that, since given the way so many people don't even finish the main story, it can feel like a waste to invest on content even fewer people will probably see. Still, I wish they did.

[Meris]

Zanallen wrote...

Once again, I was commenting on your response to the quote. It seemed odd to me. The bolded portion there is an attempt to explain why it seems odd to me. Also, your definition of attributes doesn't seem to be the same as the other poster's definition of the word. Heck, by your definition, it would seem like every game uses attributes, included those action games like Skyrim and Kingdom Hearts.

Yes and I was responding to your response.

Look, the poster put two kinds of combat in opposition, an action game-based one where the graphical representation is more cinematic and closer to reality and a RTS game-based one where the graphical representation is lackluster, though favoring the characterization of each character's abilities and a different kind of gameplay that BioWare's been filling since 1998.

The difference between the two isn't that one lack mathematical modifiers, just that the other's core and spirit is based all around them. And the poster believes that 'character spreadsheet and attribute based' combat is dead, simply because 'people realized its more fun to see the bandits exploding in fire than the damage only'.

I argued against this notion because of the commercial success of Dragon Age:Origins and also because it's combat is relatable to a successful genre, the RTS.

Zjarcal wrote...

I also prefer subplots as they feel more relevant to the big picture, though a few random sidequests are always nice.

Well, I like subquests in games like Skyrim. Good open worlds should feel like watching Pokemon, Ash's going to the next gym (the next part of the main quests) but there's a lot of filler in between, subquests, and hopefully its good filler.

In a game like Dragon Age, where the story is more cohesive, I prefer a mixture of the two.

Modifié par Meris, 22 décembre 2011 - 02:38 .

[Zanallen]

Eh, whatever. I don't care enough to continue this. I had a Hepatitis A and B vaccine along with a Polio booster today. My arm is sore and I'm tired. I'm going to eat my dinner and then watch some television before passing out. I have work in the morning, after all.

[NedPepper]

As someone that finds Skyrim empty and vapid....stick with what you're good at, Bioware. I will be extremely disappointed if you turn DA 3 into a soulless sandbox. Exploration is fine to an extent. Meaningless wandering does nothing for me. STICK TO TELLING STORIES. With great companions. It doesn't need to morph into an MMO or a Skyrim clone. This was always my biggest fear...I hope this is just speculation.

[Tommy6860]

Brockololly wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The main option in most of the quests is whether to do them.  That's an important option, and one that's too often  missing in modern games.  Try to avoid completing a quest you've already started in Fable, for example.

Totally, completely agree there. Not just the option to turn down a quest but it would be interesting if more games made that a more viable option by having someone turn down a quest in turn lead to something happening. I think many people playing RPGs end up accepting most quests for the hell of it cause they don't want to miss out on content. But if devs made it such that turning down a quest for a certain reason led to a new quest opening up, that would be a welcome change.

And this I agree with. However, that is what not Sylvius stated. He just gave a general theme that the simple option of accepting quest or not, suffices. I also stated that they should have some kind of consequence, otherwise, what's the point. If avoiding the quest does nothing, other than allow me to do it later for nothing, I feel it is a fetch quest type (the kind that has no impact on the plot or sotry).

[Tommy6860]

jlb524 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I really like Skyrim's conversations.  They allow tremendous freedom of character development for the player character.

I felt like a 'yes I'll accept the quest/no I won't accept the quest' bot when conversing in Skyrim.

My character felt quite bland just going on conversations.

Spoiled by VA for the PC .

TES games from Morrowind through Skyrim have never been game to emote expressions or even really highlight much tonality in convos. However, Skyrim did improve on this much with some of the main NPCs and hhow they inflect in their convos. I think the conversation,a s far as depth is a huge imporvement over Oblvion's. MY issues with Skyrim (outside of the bugs) is that it really doesn't offer much for player agency, but does much better than Oblivion.

[Tommy6860]

nedpepper wrote...

As someone that finds Skyrim empty and vapid....stick with what you're good at, Bioware. I will be extremely disappointed if you turn DA 3 into a soulless sandbox. Exploration is fine to an extent. Meaningless wandering does nothing for me. STICK TO TELLING STORIES. With great companions. It doesn't need to morph into an MMO or a Skyrim clone. This was always my biggest fear...I hope this is just speculation.

I disagree with the comment on Skyrim, but it is your opinion however. I also think it lacks in many areas and most Beth games after Daggerfall have really never lived up to my standards on what an RPG is to me. Having said that, I would love an Origins type game in a wide open world sandbox style like Skyrim. What would be wrong with that? Bioware games have almost all been linear. If I knew I had the player agency that Origins had and it could be put into a world the size of Skyrim and be able to go anywhere, that would be tops.

[Icinix]

I think some players need to have their hands held and led down a corridor without deviation, if deviation is presented, the player struggles to deal with.

Other players need to have freedom, regardless of how its implemented, if they are too railroaded, the player struggles to deal with it.

Both have pro's and con's.

I don't think there is ever going to be a game that covers both sets of fans.

But, DA3 really needs to be different to DA2 for it to re-capture the fans it lost.

[Realmzmaster]

Morroian wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Belhawk wrote...

in DA, u fast travel to every area, but in skyrim, u have to slow travel around until u find a place (town, farm, fort, etc.). If they pull stuff from Skyrim, then they will hand craft each dungeon, cave, etc., no cookie cutter caves with sections blocked off.

So you think that Bethesda handcraft all the dungeons and caves. If you look closely you will notice that the caves and dungeon layouts are the same . There are more layouts but they do repeat. The point is to make it look like they are not repeating. Sort of like what Bioware did with the dungeon under Harrimann's estate in the Exiled Prince. The dungeon has the same layout as one of the re-cycled dungeons. It is simply skinned better. I sorry you have cookie cutter caves in Skyrim also, just better disguised.

I disagree, they had something like 50 people working on dungeon design with each person working on only a few dungeons. Its possible that the dungeons done by the same person may be similar but its nothing like DA2 and I don't think anyone can reasonably expect anything more from Bethesda.

True, but the point he is trying to make is that the dungeons do not repeat and they do repeat. What you do is make sure that part of the level is the only thing that shows unlike what was done in DA2 you could see the blocked off areas on the mini-map.  And Bioware did not change what was in the layout except maybe to add a chest. As I said there are more layouts, but each dungeon layout is not unique. Now you can change the layout by what you put in it. You can reskin a dungeon to look differently and still use the same layout.  The dungeon therefore looks different even if the basic layout is the same.  It is much better than Oblivion where ever tower was virtually the same.

[NedPepper]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Personally, I feel mixed as this move just screams "SKYRIM WAS A MONSTER SUCCESS SO LETS MAKE DA MORE OPEN-WORLD TO MAKE A BETTER BUCK!"

You know... the typical EA tactic in trying to be better than a rival's franchise by just copying them.

*glances nervously at EA's attempt to model Battlefield 3's SP to be more like COD etc etc*

I don't know... I'm probably just overreacting.


That said, I think it'll be pretty cool if Bioware started to take DA to a more open-world approach. If they can make it work with the cinematic narrative of their previous games, I think we would have a winner.

Exactly what I'm saying. I doubt they would be doing this if skyrim wasn't doing exceptionally well. It's one thing to copy a rival, but another to copy and improve. EA does the former, and hopes the high priced marketing will convince people that theirs is better than the other guy's.


-Polite 


 

Did you somehow miss the marketing machine behind Skyrim?  They used actors!  I couldn't  go five minutes without seeing a SKYRIM!!! (NOW WITH DRAGONS!)  advertisment shoved in my face.  Skyrim had more ad space than Dragon 2 and Mass Effect 2 combined.  And I should say...it worked.  They sold a ton of copies.  And I woouldn't be surprised if  75 % of the people who bought it will become bored with it after 10 hours of playing it.  Gamers buy games on hype alone.  I know a lot of COD crowd who bought the game simply because it had "hype".  These people have never played an RPG in their life.... 

[Carmen_Willow]

I just want the great characters and companion action of Dragon Age combined with the ability to use bows and arrows as you do in Skyrim. I like actually having to aim and shoot my arrow to make it work. It is so satisfying to actually hear it fly and "feel" the "thunk" as it strikes home. Love it!

At the same time, I love the way Bioware does magic much more than Skyrim. It feels much more "magical."

But I want my story, I want my characters, I want my deep back story. Skyrim's folk are still too shallow for me.. Can I just have it all, please?

BTW, I liked the framed narrative. They just messed up the 3rd act in DA 2.

[Realmzmaster]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

I just want the great characters and companion action of Dragon Age combined with the ability to use bows and arrows as you do in Skyrim. I like actually having to aim and shoot my arrow to make it work. It is so satisfying to actually hear it fly and "feel" the "thunk" as it strikes home. Love it!

At the same time, I love the way Bioware does magic much more than Skyrim. It feels much more "magical."

But I want my story, I want my characters, I want my deep back story. Skyrim's folk are still too shallow for me.. Can I just have it all, please?

BTW, I liked the framed narrative. They just messed up the 3rd act in DA 2.

The problem with aiming and shooting an arrow and most Action RPGs comes down to accessibility. DAO and DA2 are more accessible games than TW2 or Skyrim. DAO and DA2 can be played using just the mouse on a PC. That is not possible with TW2 or Skyrim. The same with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.  Those games are accessible with a mouse.

I applaud Bioware's Dragon Age games for their accessibility.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

I just want the great characters and companion action of Dragon Age combined with the ability to use bows and arrows as you do in Skyrim. I like actually having to aim and shoot my arrow to make it work. It is so satisfying to actually hear it fly and "feel" the "thunk" as it strikes home. Love it!

At the same time, I love the way Bioware does magic much more than Skyrim. It feels much more "magical."

But I want my story, I want my characters, I want my deep back story. Skyrim's folk are still too shallow for me.. Can I just have it all, please?

BTW, I liked the framed narrative. They just messed up the 3rd act in DA 2.

I agree on all your points except frame narrative. I don't like my attention and story flow to be interrupted by time skip and plot jump. It break my immersion. 

[NedPepper]

Icinix wrote...

I think some players need to have their hands held and led down a corridor without deviation, if deviation is presented, the player struggles to deal with.

Other players need to have freedom, regardless of how its implemented, if they are too railroaded, the player struggles to deal with it.

Both have pro's and con's.

I don't think there is ever going to be a game that covers both sets of fans.

But, DA3 really needs to be different to DA2 for it to re-capture the fans it lost.

I DO think there is a danger that by changing the Dragon Age model once again, especially a drastic change into sandbox game, there's a real chance the game will lose any identity at all.  For all the changes between Origin and DA 2, to me, it still felt like Dragon Age.  But by changing everything again, Bioware is in danger of losing any continuity and confusing the heck out of the loyal, if vocal, fanbase. 

I have a theory.  People like Dragon Age because it has a unique lore, nuanced characters, and a serialized epic sense of storytelling.  STORY. (David Gaider and his writing team deserve a lot of credit, IMO.) Everything else becomes cosmetic.  As pretty as Skyrim is...after a 100 hours, if there isn't a story to hook you, characters to love, those pretty world textures start to feel rather empty. The danger of the sand box is that it could hurt the story.  And my opinion is that if people really felt that Dragon Age 2 was so horrible from a story and gaming standpoint....there's no winning them back.  Because a part of me believes they didn't really love Origins either.  Copying Skyrim in Dragon Age 3 will not bring these people back.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

nedpepper wrote...
I have a theory.  People like Dragon Age because it has a unique lore, nuanced characters, and a serialized epic sense of storytelling.  STORY.

Indeed.

nedpepper wrote..

(David Gaider and his writing team deserve a lot of credit, IMO.)

David Gaider received too many praises to the point that he thinks only what best for him. Well, allow me to be among the few people who do not think he is on par with other great writers. All I have to say, just improve his presentation and way of thinking. His story is too predictable, cliche' and uninspired.  

nedpepper wrote..


Everything else becomes cosmetic.  As pretty as Skyrim is...after a 100 hours, if there isn't a story to hook you, characters to love, those pretty world textures start to feel rather empty. The danger of the sand box is that it could hurt the story.  And my opinion is that if people really felt that Dragon Age 2 was so horrible from a story and gaming standpoint....there's no winning them back.  Because a part of me believes they didn't really love Origins either.  Copying Skyrim in Dragon Age 3 will not bring these people back.

Dragon Age 2 was horrible from story standpoint ( no comments on gaming standpoints ) because it try to exploit something risky ( namely frame narrative and unreliable third person narrator ) that it can't execute or incapable to execute properly leaving the story unbelieveable ( due to exaggeration ) and no sense of depth ( due to plot jump,. lack of focus and disjointed 3 ACTS ).

This is the first time they employ this kind of storytelling and they admit it's experimental. The good things is Mike Laidlaw post comment  that they are highly unlikely to use this kind of approach in future which is a relieve for me since I never like frame narrative especially when it's done by third person who have no idea how first person feel and think in the story. Third person accounts always a bad source of information and in RPG we need to create believable story. Not unreliable-exeggerated-not-so-true details especially when it's come to player experience. .

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 22 décembre 2011 - 04:05 .

[Melca36]

Aren19 wrote...

Speaking of news for DA3, I saw this "trailer for DA3". I wanted to ask, this can't be DA3 could it? No darkspawn, no mention of the Maker (The same person kept saying "gods"), people claiming that Morrigan's son is in the trailer (despite me saying that he could be no older than 10 now) and 2 new monsters (an elf like thing and a hybrid of a spider and snail). To me, it looks like Fable. What do you guys think?

That is somebody's lame fan made trailer.

[Auroras]

Melca36 wrote...

Aren19 wrote...

Speaking of news for DA3, I saw this "trailer for DA3". I wanted to ask, this can't be DA3 could it? No darkspawn, no mention of the Maker (The same person kept saying "gods"), people claiming that Morrigan's son is in the trailer (despite me saying that he could be no older than 10 now) and 2 new monsters (an elf like thing and a hybrid of a spider and snail). To me, it looks like Fable. What do you guys think?

That is somebody's lame fan made trailer.

It's also just a couple scenes from the Witcher II. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommy6860 wrote...

BG isn't the only Bioware game that did this well though. BG2 was great and Origins did very well at this.

I don't think this is true at all.  Both BG2 and DAO hit the player over the head with the main quest almost as soon as the game began.  There was no mistaking what the core of the game was.

But in BG, as in Skyrim, the player could (assuming he draws no conclusions from meta-game information like journal organisation) have no idea what the main quest is until it's half done.

Who cares about intergration?  The MQ was still boring.  Fail. 

All quests are boring if you just hammer through them because you think you're supposed to.

Integration with the rest of the game allows deep roleplaying in and around the main quest.  If the player character can have motives for pursuing sections of the main quest that have nothing to do with the main quest, that's a huge victory.

Again, BioWare hasn't done this since BG, and Skyrim does it well.

If loot beyond arrows and gold are, as you say, useless for 35 of the 50 levels in the game, it shouldn't be there at all.  The inventory tedium should be revamped.

What tedium?  If you concede that that the majority of the loot isn't effective loot (but just set decoration, and I hardly think you're the sort of think set decoration isn't important), where's the tedium?  The loot would only produce tedium if you insist on treating it like loot, even though you admit that it doesn't actually fill the in-game role of loot for most of the game.

Are you listening to yourself?

False depth.  Real depth comes from the story and the characters, not pretending to be a lumberjack.

The story and characters are both parts of the setting, as is all of the minutia that comprises their lives.

You're drawing an arbitrary distinction.

And yet, the less trope RPG the TES games get... the more fun they become and the more copies they sell.  Most gamers have realized it isn't doing 416 points of damage per fireball that's fun... it's watching six bandits scream as they catch fire and fly through the air.  The whole idea of attributes and number based character sheets is already dead.

How is the character in the game supposed to make decisions about which spell to learn if he cannot know the characteristics of that spell?

Personally, I find the screaming of the bandits irritating, because I cannot tell whether that's an audible event.  If I'm sneaking in Skyrim, and my Flame Atronach expires, it disappears with an enormous firey roar.  But that roar never attracts attention, so appearently that huge sound effect isn't actually audible in the game world.

A major problem Skyrim shares with all other modern games is a lack of documentation.  The stealth mechanic in this example needs to be explained to the player such that he can know what sorts of events make detectable noise.  Yes, perhaps the game should relay this information in another way, but given the presence of loud but apparently inaudible sound effects, it clearly doesn't do that.
 
Do I want to do Magicka damage to my enemies?  How much magicka do they typically have?  Of the combat mechanics were symmetrical (as they should be in all games), then I could know that and my character could plan accordingly.  But since Skyrim's combat mechanics are both asymmetrical (the ease with which I one-shot opponents with archery sneak-attacks demonstrates this) and undocumented (even if I knoew how much magicka my oponent had, I don't know how much magicka damage I do), I'm reduced to guessing.

Since when is guessing fun?  Since when is guessing when faced with life-and-death consequences even vaguely acceptable?

t would alienate the grognards, and attract modern gamers.  Win-win.

Based on your description, "modern gamers" appear to be unable or unwilling to solve a problem more than one layer deep.

Because it's a video game.  If I were to ever work hard at a video game I would feel bad about myself.

Some people like to dedictae themselves to their hobbies.  Some people spend tremendous time and money learning how to do things just for fun.  Are you at all familiar with the concept of a hobby?

That's what traditional gamers are: Hobbyists.  They're no different from people who like to rebuild cars in their spare time, or stamp collectors, or amateur painters.  They're people with a hobby - a hobby about which they care very much.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 décembre 2011 - 07:52 .

[Mr Fixit]

Zanallen wrote...

Eh, whatever. I don't care enough to continue this. I had a Hepatitis A and B vaccine along with a Polio booster today. My arm is sore and I'm tired. I'm going to eat my dinner and then watch some television before passing out. I have work in the morning, after all.

For some inexplicable reason, I am very intrigued by your dinner. What did you have?

[DrunkenMagicianNL]

BioWare already made a great game with a great story and a more or less open world (well, more open than the usual BioWare games), it's called: Baldurs Gate 1.

[HiroVoid]

nedpepper wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I think some players need to have their hands held and led down a corridor without deviation, if deviation is presented, the player struggles to deal with.

Other players need to have freedom, regardless of how its implemented, if they are too railroaded, the player struggles to deal with it.

Both have pro's and con's.

I don't think there is ever going to be a game that covers both sets of fans.

But, DA3 really needs to be different to DA2 for it to re-capture the fans it lost.

I have a theory.  People like Dragon Age because it has a unique lore, nuanced characters, and a serialized epic sense of storytelling.  STORY. (David Gaider and his writing team deserve a lot of credit, IMO.) Everything else becomes cosmetic.  As pretty as Skyrim is...after a 100 hours, if there isn't a story to hook you, characters to love, those pretty world textures start to feel rather empty. The danger of the sand box is that it could hurt the story.  And my opinion is that if people really felt that Dragon Age 2 was so horrible from a story and gaming standpoint....there's no winning them back.  Because a part of me believes they didn't really love Origins either.  Copying Skyrim in Dragon Age 3 will not bring these people back.

A story can be the best in the history in games....and it won't matter if the gameplay is no good.  No matter what type of game you make, you always put gameplay above everything.

[Demx]

The way EA wants DA to be released, I doubt Bioware could make DA3 an open world without resorting to copy/paste areas and cutting back on character development. If anything they should stick with the multiple hub areas that they used in DA:O. Then within those hubs have characters you can find while exploring who will give you tasks to complete. The random mobs that spawn in Skyrim is a nice variety. I also like having the option of looking for those endless lost books for The College of Winterhold or chopping wood for people to make extra money. That way I can horde all I want and still afford a ridiculously overpriced staff, just by doing quests people can simply skip over.

[ladyofpayne]

If Bioware create not whiny LI for Femele PC like Varric or James Vega from ME 3, I will forgive DA 3 everything. Like I do with DA 2 because of Anders.

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But in BG, as in Skyrim, the player could (assuming he draws no conclusions from meta-game information like journal organisation) have no idea what the main quest is until it's half done.

Sure, if he was utterly retarded. "Oh hey, dragons are returning to the world, that's kind of a big deal. Oh hey, I have dragon-related powers. Those two things just might be connected, and apparently there's some kind of prophecy? Everyone's talking about it."

What parts of this are not immediatly obvious?

Nevertheless, integration into the rest of the gameworld is irrelevent to Tommy's argument, since his complaint is that the story is thin and cliche, which it is. If the story sucks, if it's tired and overdone, then how well it's integrated isn't important at all.

Quality and originality should be the primary concern. Games are, primarily, a story-telling medium. People buy them because they want a good story.

There is no point in comparing Dragon Age to Skyrim because they are entirely different games with entirely different goals. The Dragon Age games are not open-world and don't pretend to be, it is evident from the word go that they are devoted almost entirely to the resolution of the main questline. This is not a fault, this is a concious choice. Are you seriously going to claim that Dragon Age is somehow flawed for delivering exactly what it promises?

If you don't want to watch Milla Jovovich defy gravity while fighting zombies, then don't watch Resident Evil. If you don't want what Dragon Age has to offer, then don't buy Dragon Age.