457 réponses à ce sujet

[Pedrak]

I believe players want a big, realistic game world (with day/night cycles, different cities with plenty of houses and buildings, NPCs with a routine...) in which they can lose themselves in.

[Jerrybnsn]

Morroian wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Since this post is primarily about whether or not to adopt Skyrim's silent protagonist, I'd like to add that the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are hands-on involved in making an rpg South Park game. And they have decided to have a silent protagonist because they want you to feel that the character you create is your own.

3rd person role playing is still role playing.

I won't deny that.  I see it as games can have different degrees of a role playing experience, the ultimate being the pen and paper D&D games.  I never once had a DM say, "Okay, here is your character that you'll play, I made him a human because it's important to what adventure you are going to have today.  You can make the person male or female, rouge, mage, warrior, it doesn't matter to me.  But when it comes time to speak, I'll do it for you, you just tell me if you want me to be diplomatic, snarky, or threatening."  Games are limited compared to the pen & paper I understand, but in the past decade other developers, including Bioware, have brought them closer to the ultimate role playing experience.  And a first person role playing game is a better experience than a thrid person.

[Jerrybnsn]

To expound on my point of the South Park creaters decision to choose silent protagonist over a voiced one, here's part of the article from the last month's Game Informer.

"Parker has always preferred RPGs that feature silent, customizable protagonists. 'One of my least favorite parts of RPGs is having some character stand there and talk, and me not being able to hit a button and skip past,' he admits. 'That's one of my main things when I first came into the meeting. I was like 'Okay, your character, whoever you're playing in the RPGm can't talk.' That's why I love Zelda so much. You can just fill in the blanks of 'Well, here's what I would say right here.' Whenever I'm playing an RPG and you hear this voice go 'Well, what am I gonna do about this?,' I think 'That's not what I sound like. that's not what I would say.' It always p**** me off and takes me out of it.'"

And this is coming from someone who has had a succesful living out of being a creator in T.V., movies, and Broadway. Not to mention such award winning musical numbers as "Blame Canada!"

[Atakuma]

I don't see your point. It's still nothing more than one man's opinion.

Modifié par Atakuma, 07 janvier 2012 - 07:37 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Atakuma wrote...

I don't see your point. It's still nothing more than one man's opinion.

One man's opinion who gets to decide the direction of a game is going.  Silent or voiced?  He choose silent because that's what he wants to play in his RPGs.  Just like when the Lead Director for Dragon Age Origins turned down DA2 because the game they wanted to make was not the type of RPGs he likes to play.

[IanPolaris]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I don't see your point. It's still nothing more than one man's opinion.

One man's opinion who gets to decide the direction of a game is going.  Silent or voiced?  He choose silent because that's what he wants to play in his RPGs.  Just like when the Lead Director for Dragon Age Origins turned down DA2 because the game they wanted to make was not the type of RPGs he likes to play.

...or to continue the point why DA2 was such a radical departy from the greatly successful and highly acclaimed DAO.   One person didn't like DAO and unfortunately that one person was the new lead designer and his vote outwieghed the millions of others that did like it....at least until the failure in DA2 sales started to register...and even then I am not so sure that Bioware/EA has still realized it's mistake.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

IanPolaris wrote...

and even then I am not so sure that Bioware/EA has still realized it's mistake.

I'm pretty sure they have. The sales figures kind of speak for themselves.



It's important do differentiate between what someone when they try to pitch the game in public[/url] and what they say behind closed doors.

[Heimdall]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

and even then I am not so sure that Bioware/EA has still realized it's mistake.

I'm pretty sure they have. The sales figures kind of speak for themselves.



It's important do differentiate between what someone when they try to pitch the game in public[/url] and what they say behind closed doors.

QFT

It drives me mad when people come on and try to be doomy and gloomy, pointing at public statements and saying "They still want to make the next game another DA2" or something.  People need to realize that they still want to sell copies of the game regardless of the flaws, and publically denouncing it would hardly be conducive.

[bEVEsthda]

Lord Aesir wrote...

It drives me mad when people come on and try to be doomy and gloomy, pointing at public statements and saying "They still want to make the next game another DA2" or something.  People need to realize that they still want to sell copies of the game regardless of the flaws, and publically denouncing it would hardly be conducive.

Excuse me, but that they might know DA2 failed, that doesn't mean that they know why, or what to do "right" in their next effort.
Neither do we, actually, even if we can have an opinion and be personally convinced, ...each for his own.

Taking myself as an example, I have always considered the new art direction to be the main problem with DA2. The game doesn't take itself seriously. It tries to be "fun" (in the worst meaning). This is the source of all the bad nonsense. The Hong Kong movie animations. The "clever" dialogue. The overpowerful "nuke-" combat skills. The "streamlining" (in the worst meaning). The Zap-Kaboom anime combat. The anime art. The Donkey Kong gameplay. The 'iconic looks'. The Transformer armour suits. The entire feeling of having the developers push their personal "cool"-story-look-aren't-we-clever onto your passive, powerless, impotent gamer self. Your only role being clearing the Donkey Kong levels and pick up the glowing jewels.

All this **** is why I dislike DA2. But I do feel that Bioware don't listen to that. I think they listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies" and all that precious "constructive criticism". I have no doubt many such flaws are going to be rectified in DA3. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm probably going to dislike DA3 just as much as DA2, if it doesn't intend to be serious. If it intends to stick to its "new direction", which is still, as far as I've seen, what the developers are hinting.

I might be overdoing this a bit, but many "flaws" don't matter so much. What if I had disliked DA:O for instance? - Oh the "flaws" I could point out! I hate manna systems and auto-health, just for a start...  But I LIKE (correction: love) DA: Origins. Because of that, it's flaws are nothing. Same with The Witcher 2. Oh Boy: ..  the action combat, twitch play... We could start there. There are so many "flaws" to nag about endlessly. ...But, - I happen to like TW2. Same thing again.  Like the game - flaws don't matter. Dislike the game - you'll find and gripe about every flaw, even those present already in the predecessor, which you thought nothing about previously.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 07 janvier 2012 - 09:37 .

[Morroian]

 

Jerrybnsn wrote...
And a first person role playing game is a better experience than a thrid person.

Thats a matter of personal preference not objective truth. 

IanPolaris wrote...

...or to continue the point why DA2 was such a radical departy from the greatly successful and highly acclaimed DAO.   One person didn't like DAO and unfortunately that one person was the new lead designer and his vote outwieghed the millions of others that did like it..

The changes were hardly purely a Mike Laidlaw decision, Mark Darragh outranked him as Project Manager just for one thing and such decisions would never just come down to 1 person in a company the size of Bioware.

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

It's important do differentiate between what someone  when they try to pitch the game in public[/url] and what they say behind closed doors.

Something many people on BSN refuse to acknowledge as is obvious whenever a public remark is dissected.

Modifié par Morroian, 07 janvier 2012 - 10:21 .

[Morroian]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Taking myself as an example, I have always considered the new art direction to be the main problem with DA2. The game doesn't take itself seriously. It tries to be "fun" (in the worst meaning). This is the source of all the bad nonsense. The Hong Kong movie animations. The "clever" dialogue. The overpowerful "nuke-" combat skills. The "streamlining" (in the worst meaning). The Zap-Kaboom anime combat. The anime art. The Donkey Kong gameplay.

 
Donkey kong gameplay?

And the art design is not anime like, you're taking the animations, which are anime like, and extending it to the art design.

The 'clever dialogue' is  only a minority (0.33 of the default dialoue options and there is a lot of diaologue beyond those default options) and anyway DAO featured such dialogue as well. 

DAIO featured more overpowered skills than DA2 a few of which were removed for DA2 and some of which were de-powered for DA2.

bEVEsthda wrote...

All this **** is why I dislike DA2. But I do feel that Bioware don't listen to that. I think they listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies" and all that precious "constructive criticism".
 

 
Well they are compromising over the equipping companions issue and the criticism of the combat animations has been such that I hope they're listening to that.

 

bEVEsthda wrote...

I might be overdoing this a bit, but many "flaws" don't matter so much. What if I had disliked DA:O for instance? - Oh the "flaws" I could point out! I hate manna systems and auto-health, just for a start...  But I LIKE (correction: love) DA: Origins. Because of that, it's flaws are nothing. Same with The Witcher 2. Oh Boy: ..  the action combat, twitch play... We could start there. There are so many "flaws" to nag about endlessly. ...But, - I happen to like TW2. Same thing again.  Like the game - flaws don't matter. Dislike the game - you'll find and gripe about every flaw, even those present already in the predecessor, which you thought nothing about previously.

And here we agree its a matter of immersion, if a game draws you in and immerses you the flaws don't matter.

[Plaintiff]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

To expound on my point of the South Park creaters decision to choose silent protagonist over a voiced one, here's part of the article from the last month's Game Informer.

"Parker has always preferred RPGs that feature silent, customizable protagonists. 'One of my least favorite parts of RPGs is having some character stand there and talk, and me not being able to hit a button and skip past,' he admits. 'That's one of my main things when I first came into the meeting. I was like 'Okay, your character, whoever you're playing in the RPGm can't talk.' That's why I love Zelda so much. You can just fill in the blanks of 'Well, here's what I would say right here.' Whenever I'm playing an RPG and you hear this voice go 'Well, what am I gonna do about this?,' I think 'That's not what I sound like. that's not what I would say.' It always p**** me off and takes me out of it.'"

And this is coming from someone who has had a succesful living out of being a creator in T.V., movies, and Broadway. Not to mention such award winning musical numbers as "Blame Canada!"

You realise that these quotes make Matt Parker look like a complete ****ing idiot, right?

When you hold up Link as a good example of a "silent RPG protagonist", you're doing it wrong. The Zelda games are not RPGs.

[Heimdall]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

It drives me mad when people come on and try to be doomy and gloomy, pointing at public statements and saying "They still want to make the next game another DA2" or something.  People need to realize that they still want to sell copies of the game regardless of the flaws, and publically denouncing it would hardly be conducive.

Excuse me, but that they might know DA2 failed, that doesn't mean that they know why, or what to do "right" in their next effort.
Neither do we, actually, even if we can have an opinion and be personally convinced, ...each for his own.

Taking myself as an example, I have always considered the new art direction to be the main problem with DA2. The game doesn't take itself seriously. It tries to be "fun" (in the worst meaning). This is the source of all the bad nonsense. The Hong Kong movie animations. The "clever" dialogue. The overpowerful "nuke-" combat skills. The "streamlining" (in the worst meaning). The Zap-Kaboom anime combat. The anime art. The Donkey Kong gameplay. The 'iconic looks'. The Transformer armour suits. The entire feeling of having the developers push their personal "cool"-story-look-aren't-we-clever onto your passive, powerless, impotent gamer self. Your only role being clearing the Donkey Kong levels and pick up the glowing jewels.

All this **** is why I dislike DA2. But I do feel that Bioware don't listen to that. I think they listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies" and all that precious "constructive criticism". I have no doubt many such flaws are going to be rectified in DA3. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm probably going to dislike DA3 just as much as DA2, if it doesn't intend to be serious. If it intends to stick to its "new direction", which is still, as far as I've seen, what the developers are hinting.

I might be overdoing this a bit, but many "flaws" don't matter so much. What if I had disliked DA:O for instance? - Oh the "flaws" I could point out! I hate manna systems and auto-health, just for a start...  But I LIKE (correction: love) DA: Origins. Because of that, it's flaws are nothing. Same with The Witcher 2. Oh Boy: ..  the action combat, twitch play... We could start there. There are so many "flaws" to nag about endlessly. ...But, - I happen to like TW2. Same thing again.  Like the game - flaws don't matter. Dislike the game - you'll find and gripe about every flaw, even those present already in the predecessor, which you thought nothing about previously.

You rather missed my point.  I was only saying that many people seem to take that fact that Bioware isn't on their hands and knees apologizing for DA2 as a bad sign, which is purely ridiculous.

[element eater]

^ no you should wait until they mention specific aspects of DA2 that are making a return or features from da2 they have pretty much stated wont be returning

[Imrahil_]

bEVEsthda wrote...
All this **** is why I dislike DA2. But I do feel that Bioware don't listen to that. I think they listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies" and all that precious "constructive criticism". I have no doubt many such flaws are going to be rectified in DA3. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm probably going to dislike DA3 just as much as DA2, if it doesn't intend to be serious. If it intends to stick to its "new direction", which is still, as far as I've seen, what the developers are hinting.

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

The "new direction" is the problem, & better dungeon design wouldn't have helped.  So, I'm kinda glad they rushed it.  It means we found out their "new direction" was terrible sooner.  The problem is that they still think the "new direction" is the right direction.

As you said, they're going to listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies", & no doubt they'll fix those things.  Those were just stupid design elements that no game should have.  But they're going to think those were the only problems.  They're going to keep all the real mistakes, I fear.

[IanPolaris]

Imrahil_ wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
All this **** is why I dislike DA2. But I do feel that Bioware don't listen to that. I think they listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies" and all that precious "constructive criticism". I have no doubt many such flaws are going to be rectified in DA3. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm probably going to dislike DA3 just as much as DA2, if it doesn't intend to be serious. If it intends to stick to its "new direction", which is still, as far as I've seen, what the developers are hinting.

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

The "new direction" is the problem, & better dungeon design wouldn't have helped.  So, I'm kinda glad they rushed it.  It means we found out their "new direction" was terrible sooner.  The problem is that they still think the "new direction" is the right direction.

As you said, they're going to listen to "re-used environments", "lack of meaningful choices", "wave enemies", & no doubt they'll fix those things.  Those were just stupid design elements that no game should have.  But they're going to think those were the only problems.  They're going to keep all the real mistakes, I fear.

+1

That's my fear too.  I don't think Bioware understands the fundamental errors that they made and at this point I don't think they ever will.

-Polaris

[Morroian]

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2. And you're ignoring bevesthda's final point about what you perceive as flaws not mattering if you enjoy the game. 

Modifié par Morroian, 08 janvier 2012 - 09:05 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2.

Except that ME2 won numerous year ends award while DA 2 is not even worth any nomination, despite both games share identical elements.  You may want to look further before using ME 2 for comparison..

[IanPolaris]

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2. And you're ignoring bevesthda's final point about what you perceive as flaws not mattering if you enjoy the game. 

This is an apples to kumquats comparison.  Mass Effect was never marketed and never intended to be a 'pure' RPG in the classic (Buldur's Gate) sense.  From start to finish, Mass Effect has always been an Action/RPG hybrid.  That means that mechanics that are acceptable for such a hybrid are non-starters for Dragon Age.

-Polaris

[Dormiglione]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2.

Except that ME2 won numerous year ends award while DA 2 is not even worth any nomination, despite both games share identical elements.  You may want to look further before using ME 2 for comparison..

Exactly. But how is that possible? DA2 and ME2 share a lot of identical elements but the reception, the success of both games couldnt be more different.

I take me as an example. Loved ME, preordered ME2 and was absolute happy, played many playthroughs, ME2 was that what i expected as a the sequel of ME. The story of my "Hero/Warden/Shephard" continued and i had the possibility of Relationships with NPC's known from ME.
The Story from ME was continued in ME2, people that bought ME 2 for the story were happy and didnt care about flaws, the story was the absolute important factor.

DAO, preordered it, loved the origins, loved NPC's like Morrigan, Leliana, Sten, Alistair, Zevran and terrible missed them in DA2.
All what remained in DA2, a railroaded adventure that took me away all possibilities to decide someting, didnt continue the story of my hero instead delivered an incoherent Story, and then when you are not happy with the product, you take a closer look at every flaw that you find. And the result was massive "Backlash"

IMO, if there is something that Bioware should take from Skyrim then please that: A sequel should be the evolution of the predecessor and not a 180 degree turn from it.

Modifié par Dormiglione, 08 janvier 2012 - 10:26 .

[Bleachrude]

Dormiglione wrote...


IMO, if there is something that Bioware should take from Skyrim then please that: A sequel should be the evolution of the predecessor and not a 180 degree turn from it.

But there's NOTHING connecting Skyrim to Oblivion. You literally could play Skyrim first and THEN Oblivion, then Daggerfall, then morrowind and NOT have any problems since there's no connection to each other with regard to plot, characters etc other than being apart of the same world.

One of the things one could argue given the success of the witcher AND Skyrim is that party-based adventure is actually a drawback given that neither of those two allow for that and were much more successful than DA

[Gibb_Shepard]

Morroian wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

I agree.  I'm a bit torn on the whole "they rushed DA2" thing.  They were going to put out a horrible game regardless of how long they took.  If they'd had more time, there would be less recycled areas, less waves probably, better encounters, *maybe* more meaningful choices, but the game would have still been terrible.

Nope, you may not have liked it but it would have been a great game and the reception would have been a lot better. More along the lines of what happened with ME2. And you're ignoring bevesthda's final point about what you perceive as flaws not mattering if you enjoy the game. 

ME was always a hybrid. DAO was not.

[Dundalis]

What if you don't like the sound of the character you are playing? What if you want him/her to sound different. It might give the character a different tone from what you are perhaps trying to roleplay.

Gamers lack imagination today. That's the problem. They want to be spoon fed everything and not have to think. Having everyone voiced is just another step towards that.

It's like reading a good fiction novel over watching a movie. No movie will ever have anything over a good novel, but most people today don't think like that. Novels have no voices, except ones you create using your imagination. Movies are limited creatively, everything is spoon fed to you, you don't really have to do any thinking. Games are making a similar trend away from the scope of an interactive novel into an interactive movie. Nothing left to the imagination. The gamer doesn't have to do much anymore except move around and hit a few buttons. More and more options get taken away to streamline the experience. It's unfortunate but it's true. And it looks like people are quite happy with that.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Bleachrude wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...


IMO, if there is something that Bioware should take from Skyrim then please that: A sequel should be the evolution of the predecessor and not a 180 degree turn from it.

But there's NOTHING connecting Skyrim to Oblivion. You literally could play Skyrim first and THEN Oblivion, then Daggerfall, then morrowind and NOT have any problems since there's no connection to each other with regard to plot, characters etc other than being apart of the same world.

One of the things one could argue given the success of the witcher AND Skyrim is that party-based adventure is actually a drawback given that neither of those two allow for that and were much more successful than DA

I disagree,

The Witcher 2 feature multiple endings or non linear plot.

ME 2 emphasize the importance of choices. Every singe choices you made influenced the outcome of the end game. Who will survive? Will Shepard live? Are your companions loyal enough? etc..

Skyrim is known for open world hence, every TES veterans knew that they must create their own adventure and simulate their life experience in the vast openess of Tamriel. 

It's all ties to one simple RPG mechanic. Let the player shape their own story. Either they create their stories from scratch as in Skyrim. Or they choose from multiple ending paths like TW 2. Or choose from several alternative plot keys that will affect the end game like ME 2 and Origins.  

If you are unable to influence the story in any meaningful way simply because everything has to follow writer's intent then what's the purpose of playing the role?  What's the point of making any decisions? What the points of having dialogue choices? 

You may as well scrap all choices ( since they are wasting time anyway ), just watch animation and mashing buttons like in any other action games or interactive movie. Or better still let the writer play his own story while you watch.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 janvier 2012 - 12:01 .