288 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Something occured to me while I was thinking about Sylvius' comment on another thread where he was expressing his vehement opposition to the mere existence of a respec option like Maker's Sigh, although it was purely optional, and noone forced you to use it.

I think some people (not saying it's true for all with the same position) go for such a profound sense of immersion in the gameworld, that even simply knowing there's the *option* to accomplish something outside regular gameplay, for no documented and/or logically explainable in-world reason, significantly affects their ability to immerse themselves.

I think.

Hmmm...actually, from a roleplaying perspective, I can understand that seeing a respec potion or magic mirror that changes what your character looks like is something akin to breaking the 4th wall. Would they have been less objectionable if they were functions you accessed via the Options menu instead of immersion-breaking items? That depends on if they're disputing the ability to respec/remodel a character full stop, or that these feature are a part of actual gameplay where they are forced to see them and rationalise them in character.

I ignored the items and treated them as OOC, only using them to fool around, but I do have a very minor objection to treating items like these as canon without bothering to follow up with all that entails. I like to think my Hawke's mother would notice if her daughter's tattoo disappeared, her hair gew several inches overnight, her face changed shape and her skin turned white. Not to mention her sudden startling proficiency with fire magic, and apparent amnesia regarding buffs.

So while it doesn't bother me all that much, I could see where the more sensitive RPers are coming from--so long as their objection is to such items being in the game proper.

[Maria Caliban]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

Something occured to me while I was thinking about Sylvius' comment on another thread where he was expressing his vehement opposition to the mere existence of a respec option like Maker's Sigh, although it was purely optional, and noone forced you to use it.

I think some people (not saying it's true for all with the same position) go for such a profound sense of immersion in the gameworld, that even simply knowing there's the *option* to accomplish something outside regular gameplay, for no documented and/or logically explainable in-world reason, significantly affects their ability to immerse themselves.

I think.

Hmmm...actually, from a roleplaying perspective, I can understand that seeing a respec potion or magic mirror that changes what your character looks like is something akin to breaking the 4th wall. Would they have been less objectionable if they were functions you accessed via the Options menu instead of immersion-breaking items?

IIRC, Sylvanus suggested it be an option in the menu as opposed to an object in the world. Mr Fixit seems to have misread the objection to it.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Thanks for the clarification, Maria!

[philippe willaume]

Ghidorah14 wrote...

This lady is stupid.

Her writing is stupid.

The backlash is incredibly stupid.

Those supporting her are NOT stupid.

Those who are pretending she didnt bring at least some on herself are kinda stupid.

Those who think her suggestion of a "skip combat" button is anything other than "stupid" need to stop kidding themselves.

Thanks that was very productive and gave me a lot to think about
I think you have forgotten expressing opinions without supporting fact or at leat exemple is kind of .................
supobtimal.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 26 février 2012 - 12:02 .

[Halarid]

HanErlik wrote...
If they will keep DA2's combat in the third game, I completely agree with Jen Hepler about skip combat button. Killing waves of dozens of clones just for crossing a street is not what I want in a RPG. But if they manage to get rid of spawning clones and put a sensible combat system instead, skip button will not be necesarry.

This is something the majority can agree about, I believe.


Jennifer Hepler, our saviour! 

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Well, character creation wasn't really simplified,

Yes it was.

No it wasn't.  Building an effective character involves far more genuine decision in DA2 than DA:O.

Yes it was.
Including character advancement.


DAO was already on the bare minimum of variety and flexibility, but DA2 somehow managed to reach new lows. Even for anime standards.


From "primary attributes" to skills and class banned combat styles.


Also, something that's not strictly tied to character creation/advancement, but it certainly affects it:
Ridiculous asymmetry in rules (miss chance against enemies, attack speed and HP, for example), level scaling that's become an abominable standard in every Bioware game... and so on and so on...

[philippe willaume]

Das Tentakel wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Regardless of our personal preferences, we have to accept that the game must have mass-appeal. (There, I think both DA2 and KoA go the wrong way, but I recognize the reason.) Then we have to decide if there is enough entertainment left for us, in their silly nonsens. If not, we have to go elsewhere.

And there's an interesting situation: A good RPG that makes no bones about being an RPG, like The Witcher II or Skyrim, and is done very well, sell very well. So did DA:O. They were successful by most definitions of the term.
The same applies to 'lesser' titles like Dragon Knight Saga and Two Worlds II.
The question is more what kind of success Bioware is gunning for, and that appears to be more in the direction of the more successful FPS franchises. If they persist in this, I expect them to effectively quit the genre, developing relatively narrative-heavy action games. With a fast forward button / extremely easy mode for the combat.

That is, I think, a very risky strategy in the long run. Other studios are much better in making action games, and once they, too, start slapping on the narrative - and some of them are already pretty good at this as well - it will become increasingly difficult for Bioware to differentiate itself.
I have no difficulty imagining a future where Bioware has to compete directly with the descendants of Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Halo, not to mention Deus Ex and God of War, while Bethesda, CDProjekt and some others rule the RPG roost, even if their sales numbers are less spectacular than that of the most succesful of 'narrativized' action games.

Well the essence of RPG is affecting the narrative by your actions.
So combat, stealth, social engineering, char development, companion interaction or interaction with leagues, political group, faction and so on.

Fundamentally, you can't have a good role playing game session without a good story, the actual playing system is more like a the co-pilot in the rally car. Can’t really win the race for you, but can sure as hell lose it for you.
Now you can have the best gaming system in the world, if it does not influence the story it is just a waste.

In that respect DA:0 the Witcher and the Witcher II shines. The narratives are really good and the combat and game system supports it very well.

As you probably have guessed, I am all in favour of a way to resolve the combat quickly for those who are so minded (and that must exist in order to test how the game branches).

It is clear that a fair number of people like combat (and I am one of them) so it is clear that disregarding combat or element that enable you to affect the narrative (i.e. the RPG elements) is going to be a costly move.
 
I think having a resolve instantly button is the perfect to give a more detailed and complex not skipped elements.
It is no longer a problem to make combat more complex, because people who find combat too hard can resolve it another way.
Phil

[YohkoOhno]

Meris wrote...

I wouldn't blame BioWare for trying something new, with a new IP.

If they want to innovate so much, then they could at least not slap the Dragon Age name on it. If Origins sell well enough to warrant a sequel, then let 2 also be a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. If not then let it die and let's see if your new formula is as good or better.

Big companies like Bioware NEVER create a new IP only to strictly define it as one class of games.  I truly suspect they thought they can do all kinds of games with the Dragon Age label--RPGs, Adventure Games, Real-Time or Turn-based strategy games, Shooters, books, movies, comics, etc.  If you think they created the Dragon Age world (and trademark) only to limit themsevles, you have a poor understanding of how most creative companies work.

[bEVEsthda]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Meris wrote...

I wouldn't blame BioWare for trying something new, with a new IP.

If they want to innovate so much, then they could at least not slap the Dragon Age name on it. If Origins sell well enough to warrant a sequel, then let 2 also be a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. If not then let it die and let's see if your new formula is as good or better.

Big companies like Bioware NEVER create a new IP only to strictly define it as one class of games.  I truly suspect they thought they can do all kinds of games with the Dragon Age label--RPGs, Adventure Games, Real-Time or Turn-based strategy games, Shooters, books, movies, comics, etc.  

Well, they certainly can. And all the power to them. However, they cannot name it "Dragon Age 2", claiming it's a sequel to another game. It's quite amazing that they did. ...Only in EA...

If you think they created the Dragon Age world (and trademark) only to limit themsevles, you have a poor understanding of how most creative companies work.

Well, Meris has to answer this. But that is not how I interpreted things.

[YohkoOhno]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Well, they certainly can. And all the power to them. However, they cannot name it "Dragon Age 2", claiming it's a sequel to another game. It's quite amazing that they did. ...Only in EA...

They can do anything they want with their trademark.  Look at XCOM, it's not only going to be turn-based-strategy but also have a shooter.  Heck, there were lots of D&D games, some following the rules strictly others near adventure or arcade games.

I don't think Bioware, when creating the Dragon Age bible, ever said or promised that it would be solely for RPGs, I'm pretty sure they had a plan to cross genres. The people wanting it to be an RPG are the people who seem to think that should be Biowares speciality and consider branching out some kind of betrayal.  This pigeon-holeing is the fans perspective--most likely fear that if Bioware is more successful with some kind of hybrid or shooter it will mean the end of their favorite genre of games.

Personally, I just want fun games from Bioware, I don't need them all to be RPGs, nor do I think the company should be stuck doing something because of what fans loved 10-12 years ago.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 26 février 2012 - 04:17 .

[Meris]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Meris wrote...

I wouldn't blame BioWare for trying something new, with a new IP.

If they want to innovate so much, then they could at least not slap the Dragon Age name on it. If Origins sell well enough to warrant a sequel, then let 2 also be a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate. If not then let it die and let's see if your new formula is as good or better.

Big companies like Bioware NEVER create a new IP only to strictly define it as one class of games.  I truly suspect they thought they can do all kinds of games with the Dragon Age label--RPGs, Adventure Games, Real-Time or Turn-based strategy games, Shooters, books, movies, comics, etc.  If you think they created the Dragon Age world (and trademark) only to limit themsevles, you have a poor understanding of how most creative companies work.

However they choose to act does not make Dragon Age II anymore a sequel to Origins than a spin-off. And if you actually believe that choosing and sticking to a genre for the main games of a expanded universe is limiting, you have poor vision.

[HiroVoid]

YohkoOhno wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
Well, they certainly can. And all the power to them. However, they cannot name it "Dragon Age 2", claiming it's a sequel to another game. It's quite amazing that they did. ...Only in EA...

They can do anything they want with their trademark.  Look at XCOM, it's not only going to be turn-based-strategy but also have a shooter.  Heck, there were lots of D&D games, some following the rules strictly others near adventure or arcade games.

I don't think Bioware, when creating the Dragon Age bible, ever said or promised that it would be solely for RPGs, I'm pretty sure they had a plan to cross genres. The people wanting it to be an RPG are the people who seem to think that should be Biowares speciality and consider branching out some kind of betrayal.  This pigeon-holeing is the fans perspective--most likely fear that if Bioware is more successful with some kind of hybrid or shooter it will mean the end of their favorite genre of games.

Personally, I just want fun games from Bioware, I don't need them all to be RPGs, nor do I think the company should be stuck doing something because of what fans loved 10-12 years ago.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they created DAO with the more 'old school CRPG' design in mind.  They didn't think it would go well, so they went 'Hmm....what would appeal to a broader and more of the console audience?'

[YohkoOhno]

Meris wrote...
However they choose to act does not make Dragon Age II anymore a sequel to Origins than a spin-off. And if you actually believe that choosing and sticking to a genre for the main games of a expanded universe is limiting, you have poor vision.

I consider it limiting because the best games that are made do something different.  Games like the original Diablo, the original BG series, System Shock, Doom, etc., all did something different that end up getting imitated by others and define a genre.  The problem is, the only way to do that is to experiment and sometimes ****** off the hard core fans a bit when you want to step out of your narrowly defined genre.  

Fallout 3 is a hit and yet it is very different from the original 2 Fallouts, yet takes place in the same world and universe.

Do I agree DA2 was lackluster--yes.  

Do I think Bioware needs to do everything in the DA:O method in future games? No.  

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 26 février 2012 - 04:43 .

[Darth Death]

I agree that gameplay is critical to a successful videogame, more so than its story. I can relate this to FF 12 amazing, and even ahead of its time combat system, but absolutely mediocre storytelling. Still, I've enjoyed & cherished the experience til this day despite many others hating it. Having an awesome story & gameplay on a high level produces a fantastic experience for us gamers. I believe truly BioWare understands this concept effectively. They wouldn't be BioWare otherwise.

[Stanley Woo]

And I think we're well and truly off-topic now. If you wish to continue the discussion of what makes a successful feature, RPG, game, or franchise, please use our Off-Topic forum. Thank you.

End of line.