65 réponses à ce sujet

[egervari]

Have RPGs in general gotten better or worse or just different, and if so, how different?

I went back and tried out some old games... Torment, Baldur's Gate 1/2, Fallout 1/2, Arcanum, Might and Magic 4-7 - basically some of the great games I played as a kid. I didn't play through them to their finality obviously... just a few hours each.

I also went back and played some Neverwinter Nights and some Kotor, which aren't really that old. I would have went back and played games like Lands of Lore or Ultima, but good luck getting those games to run on today's OS's. And while I didn't go back and play NES/SNES RPGs, I played them enough times to know what they are all about.

I think I have to say RPGs today are different, but I think somewhat better overall. I think what plagued a lot of RPGs in 1995-1998 era is that their systems were overly complex. While that's not a bad thing, their user interface was often a hurdle after having been coddled by the newer UI systems of today.

For example, in Fallout 1/2, the inventory system is a massive main in the ass. It took me about 1.5 hours to discover a trick to get infinite space to be manageable, but even then it won't let me temporary carry over my limit just to move or sell things while standing in the same position. The actual interface and clicks to get simple things done is overall complex as well. It's a marvel I never thought about when I was 16 or 17 years old much.

Most CPRGs were pretty unforgiving too. If you didn't have a "stat" or you said something in the wrong order, there is a good chance those conversation options are lost forever. There's a chance quests will never be completed if you aren't playing perfectly. I found this to be fairly nerve racking now. There's also a great deal of disorganization with the options, by seeing them in different order depending on where you are in the tree... or seeing the same options come up over and over, losing track of where you are.

In today's conversation trees, you always know where you are in the tree. I know this might break immersion for some, but it adds predictability and control... and that's better for me. Mass Effect and Dragon Age and Fallout 3 got this right especially.

I actually had a really, really hard time getting into Might and Magic. The map system and quest system was terrible, even in M&M 8. The older M&M games (4/5) that I tried never really had a sense that you were building towards anything. I honestly never got sucked in with the character development. It's very shallow.

In many older games, there's a sense of danger and imbalance that isn't present in newer games. In arcanum especially, you can find yourself getting attacked by three level 15's when you are level 5 and just die. And don't let me tell you it takes many, many levels in that game to get your character to come into their own so you really don't stand a chance.

I'm actually glad to see these encounters go, because all this mechanic does is causes unnecessary frustration. So you run into 3 golden bears that are 5x your level? Well, that's pretty much an instant reload. You didn't save recently? Well, good luck re-doing a lot of the game all over again. This actually feels disheartening rather than fun... for me anyway.

Surprisingly, while I had fond memories of party members being fleshed out in older games, it's surprising how dull they actually are. Dragon Age is much better compared to Fallout or even any other bioware games. Most of western RPGs had terrible party members back in those days. Torment is probably one of the few exceptions rather than the rule.

I think JRPGs got the party member strategy right. Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy 4/6/7 had some great characters and interactions.

I think gaming systems are getting simpler too. Take a look at D&D rules compared to Dragon Age - DA:O is so much simpler. I think it's better for it. When I was 16, I didn't have a problem reading for hours trying to understand the rules so I could do better at the game.... but today? I honestly couldn't be bothered.

Neverwinter Nights 2 is pillar of confusion for me. It would take me days probably to learn all the quirks and prestige classes to get my full enjoyment out of that game. It gets to the point where I can't be bothered. There's just too much to know, and not knowing can easily screw you over. More so, the engine is only a few years older than DA:O... and yet, it's easily 20 times worse in user interface, graphics, overall comfort and feel, etc. This stuff matters to me a lot.

What does strike me is that how little has changed at the same time. AI characters
are basically all horrible. The only exeception was party-based games
where you could control your characters (i.e. the infinite engine
games).

Also, All the modern claims of "your choices actually
matter" don't result in much different behaviours than they did back in
Fallout 1 and 2... and that's more than a decade ago! I think games
like Dragon Age or Fallout 3 are the best examples of driving your own
story. While linear, they have enough scripted variation to deliver on
the promise. Looking at the Fallout 3 guide, you'd be surprised at all the paths you can take. Still, it's not much different than the older Fallout
games. Other than the incredible voice acting and graphics, not much
has changed in this regard.

In today's games, I think we've regressed some for the sack of realism. I don't know why we have inventory limits still. I rather liked how in NES days, your inventory in Final Fantasy was huge. These days, one can spend 30 minutes to hours just sorting and cleaning up their inventory... or deciding what to throw away, and that sort of thing. It becomes a huge pain in the ass honestly. Inventory management just isn't fun (and why I use the toolset to cheat and set my inventory space to 999 in DA:O - makes a WORLD of difference for me).

Surprisingly... one thing older games got right was font sizes. In today's games, they are just so damned small. I thought it was because my eye was getting worse and worse (I'm legally blind... but well enough to see a computer screen). But no... they just get smaller. I have no problems with Fallout 3 conversation trees... but I think in just about every other game, they are too small. Older games more or less got this better, although they are too small as well. It's not possible to sit back and relax while playing a CRPG. You have to sit close to the monitor to read stuff. I hate that.

Overall, I think games like Fallout 3 and DA:O are much better than the old games. What do you think?

[Odysseus44]

I say good for you you don't feel the other way around. It's nice to enjoy the present better than the past.



I have mixed feelings. We definitely lost something in the evolution towards better presentation, better production values and more streamlined experience.

[MartinJHolm]

I would say different, also people tend to be nostalgic and think everything was better back when...

[Drag0n-RD]

We haven't really lost anything. It's just that old style CRPG's are now made by indie companies where the more mainstream ones ~ such as Bio focus more on the 3D modern approach. I'm not one to advertise other companies but search for Basilisk Games' Eschalon Book I that has a good feel of Ultima about it.

[willsanders84]

Last night I went crazy on these forums, trying to drum up some appreciation for the old classics. There was acually alot of feedback, and it seemed that alot of people shared my views, while alot didn't. I think that the rpgs from the 90's, and todays rpgs are almost completely different things. Overall, I'd have to say that I prefer the older games, but that's all it is, a preferance. I love fallout 1, I thought that it was fresh and engrossing. Baldur's Gate 2 was charming and completely immersed me. Planescape Torment dark and gripping.



I have played WoW, Morrowind, and dabbled in a couple of other more recent games. I haven't played Dragon Age. I found that with these games, it certainly felt more like I was my character, that the world was vast, and that really makes you want to play. My only criticism would be that there were points where I felt lost and alone. I understand that Dragon Age is more linear, and party memebers play a large part, but some of the detatchment I felt from modern rpgs was due to the interface, the huge inventories. It just feels impersonal.



I think that a well written, cleverly thought out modern day rpg would be far superior to the games from the 90's. I don't want to have to pick from hundrends of longswords, five is enough of a choice for me. Unfortunately I find developers today simply expanding on the micromanagement aspects, on the graphics, on the animations, rather than simply using those things as aids for the sake of an immersive adventure.

[egervari]

MartinJHolm wrote...

I would say different, also people tend to be nostalgic and think everything was better back when...

I'm totally a sucker for nostalgia, but it's wearing off over the years. Some older games now are unplayable. I don't mean that in the true sense, but they are really hard to get into, and there are a lot of UI and convenience hurdles to overcome just to enjoy the game... and then when you realize the game that is there isn't nearly as good as Fallout 3 or DA:O... you question why you're even playing it in the first place

[egervari]

One thing I like about DA:O is that there isn't a whole lot to keep track of. In older games, there was way too much to keep track of.



Take IWD2 or NWN2... you really need to be looking at a 200 page guide to see all the implications on your character development implications. I can't speak for NWN2, but IWD2 is a hard game. If you mess up your character development, it will be much harder than if you get it right.



In BG2, your mind has to be wrapped around who to pick pocket, what chests to not miss out on, where to put your points in precisely, what level to duel class at to maximize experience, when you need to level squat, when to get imoen so her levels wouldn't be gimped, etc. etc.



In DA:O... all of this complexity is gone, and I think it's better for it. You don't have to have a strategy or gamefaqs walkthrough sitting in front of you just to get most of what you might want out of the game.



Now, I do think DA:O could have benefited from more class choices. It *is* a little too simple. And the variation from game balance corners people even further, so there isn't a lot of variety overall. I still prefer this over something like NWN2 anyday. I just can't be bothered to spend an entire week reading the NWN2 wiki about how all the mechanics work and what all of my build options are. Just insane. A game like that should just have 100 pretty good auto-leveling scripts to pick from... and it's too bad that the ones it does come with are all bad :/

[egervari]

willsanders84 wrote...

Last night I went crazy on these forums, trying to drum up some appreciation for the old classics. There was acually alot of feedback, and it seemed that alot of people shared my views, while alot didn't. I think that the rpgs from the 90's, and todays rpgs are almost completely different things. Overall, I'd have to say that I prefer the older games, but that's all it is, a preferance. I love fallout 1, I thought that it was fresh and engrossing. Baldur's Gate 2 was charming and completely immersed me. Planescape Torment dark and gripping.

I have played WoW, Morrowind, and dabbled in a couple of other more recent games. I haven't played Dragon Age. I found that with these games, it certainly felt more like I was my character, that the world was vast, and that really makes you want to play. My only criticism would be that there were points where I felt lost and alone. I understand that Dragon Age is more linear, and party memebers play a large part, but some of the detatchment I felt from modern rpgs was due to the interface, the huge inventories. It just feels impersonal.

I think that a well written, cleverly thought out modern day rpg would be far superior to the games from the 90's. I don't want to have to pick from hundrends of longswords, five is enough of a choice for me. Unfortunately I find developers today simply expanding on the micromanagement aspects, on the graphics, on the animations, rather than simply using those things as aids for the sake of an immersive adventure.

Well, I definitely have appreciation for older games. I played them and loved them after all. I know played the infinite games more times then I would like to admit BG2 is one of the rare exceptions to games that still hold their charm and immersion, for the most part.

It's hard to enjoy torment these days with all the graphic glitches on modern hardware - there's blinking cursors, the fog of war doesn't work right, etc.

I would suggest giving DA:O a try. It has pretty intelligent combat for the most part, which is different than many modern RPGs. Some battles are in fact pretty tough chess matches. It does have it's limits though once you learn how to use your mages effectively. Then things get a bit tiring. Still, it's the closest thing to BG2 that we have, and it's a pretty good upgrade in many respects.

I'm not sure what you mean by inventories. In older games, inventory management is a massive problem. In fallout, there are tons of items you will want to pick up and have nowhere near the space to put it all. Not to mention there is a time limit, so you can't really afford to go back and forth between areas to sell everything off. So... there is a barter/steal cheat to get infinite space... but that's not exactly "official". It's more like a way to take advantage of a game mechanic.

In arcanum... inventory management is a massive problem. There's just so much stuff you can take.. spare parts, herbs, etc. that you can use to craft things. It's totally 100% overwhelming when you have no idea what it is all used for. I would say many modern games have got better in this regard.

Don't get me wrong though. Space limitations in inventory are huge problems for me. Fallout 3 and DA:O Have this problem. In DA:O, you can sell off all the crap you think you won't need, get more than half of your inventory space free, and then go on a mission... and then get 50 or 100 units over easily. That's just 1 quest!

And the thing, you really do need to pick up all this trash and sell it, or you won't have a prayer in buying some of the best items in the game. Even me, who is a pack rat could only by 2 or 3 of the "expensive" items. There were a few I just could not purchase. So gold in this game is scarce, and the game won't let you be a pack rat unless you use the toolset to cheat :/ Or... you could just sell it off and go back and repeat... but man... that's hours of wasted time for little enjoyment. Just get rid of inventory space requirements altogether RPG developers!!!!

[royen1]

Imho the rpg as genre went to hell somewhere around 2005 when Troika closed down and hit rock-bottom last year with Fallout 3. (Review summary: it's quite alright if you don't try to fight anything or talk to anyone. Also, it's a blatant "**** you" to fans of the originals.)



Dragon Age is the only thing that comes close to the classics in about four or five years. Would have preferred TB combat though, or at least the pseudo-realtime combat of the Inifinity Engine.

[Elvhen Veluthil]

I prefer BG and Planescape myself. I like complicated systems, worlds full of life and adventure, so many things to discover on those games. All new RPG are been released for consoles also, so I don't think that we'll see things getting better in the future. VO is becoming standard in today RPG, so no more free style dialogs like in BG. Many people are surprised why the PC isn't voiced, go figure. But the toolset is there, so we can hope that the community will create original content.

[egervari]

I do believe DA:O is psuedo real time. You can pause and I'm sure the concept of "rounds" is implemented. We just don't see it.

I think you diss Fallout 3 too much. While it is first person and real-time, how is it much different/worse to the other games? I think they captured the world and style extremely well. Honestly, everything is better compared to the older games - everything. It's not like in fallout 2 the party members were "awesome" (they are extremely shallow). You can't do a lot with them either. They implemented pretty much exactly the same as they were in the older games. And there's still VATs, which is very similar to fallout-style combat even if it is now real-time. I don't understand the criticism about fallout 3.

When it comes to world immersion, Fallout 3 is amazing. It's so well-fleshed out and just massive. It is actually pretty nice to walk around and explore. I like it a lot. There are tons of unique things that the developers put into the game that they didn't have to. TONS. It's amazing the amount of detail they put into it. I can't even imagine the time it took them.

There are things about fallout 3 that are not so good:
1. Lots of places look the same, and lots of the less quest specific areas are too long and too many desks/cabinets to search to get bobbleheads and books. It becomes a bit redundant after awhile.
2. Knowing where you've been and not been is actually hard. It's easy to see your map and think you've been to an area, even though you haven't.
3. It's hard to see what items you can take at a glance. Even with a strategy guide or the help of the wiki, you can still search for 20 minutes for lincoln's hat. Seriously, it is very easy to miss some critical items, or at least desirable items, purely because your "eye" doesn't notice them.
4. AI teammates are retarded and die even though they have 15 stimpacks in their inventory. They often do stupid things like run in front of you while you try to lay waste to crap using vats, thus killing your own teammate. And then you gotta reload or accept the death of your teammate. Utterly frustrating. At least Mass Effect never punished you for teammates dying because they were stupid.

Having said all of that, it does a lot of things right.

Modifié par egervari, 01 décembre 2009 - 01:21 .

[Kalcalan]

Basically, games didn't take you by the hand to make sure you didn't stray from the path and never get lost.



Seriously, think about a game like Might and Magic VI the Mandate of Heaven, you had to go through so much hassle and so many quests just to get a title (the equivalent of specializations in Dragon Age) it was a challenge in itself. In that game to train a skill you had to talk to NPCs, ask them about a master that could teach you then go explore an area to spot that guy only to find out that he would only train you if you'd pay him, complete a quest, be good or evil... Or you'll discover that to become a master with a mace you'd to have a much higher strength than you had imagined.



Fallout 1 had non linearity, great dialogue trees and it forced you to make choices. In comparison Fallout 3 is limited because it allows you to create a character who ultimately will be good at everything (something that was impossible in the first Fallouts). Quests in Fallout 3 are not as complicated as in the first Fallouts.



Games nowadays tend to rely too much on NPCs that can't be killed (Fallout 3) or situations where you have to initiate combat through dialogue and cutscenes (Dragon Age). Old games didn't.



There is also something that is quite irritating about this tendency to rely too much on level scaling. In the old days the game worlds didn't change because your character was getting better. In Might and Magic VI for instance you could go anywhere on the map and you'd only know that the area was too dangerous for your party because a monster could kill one of your characters with one hit. In Fallout 1 there was no level scaling either, you ran into a group of supermutants with a low level character who didn't even have a gun... well it was better luck next time vault dweller.



Games have definitely changed. It's difficult to say that without sounding like an old fart but a few years ago games offered more of a challenge. Nowadays games seem to target casual players who are mostly console players (no offense to anyone, I don't want to rekindle a PC vs console war, what I'm saying is that console players are generally perceived as being more casual or less dedicated if you prefer that term). As a consequence it seems to me that games are more and more linear and easy. Not only games are made in such a way that you have a flashing marker on your map telling you where to go but if you actually use a mod to turn those off you may be in trouble because some of these games don't provide enough information for you to play without such markers unless you already know the game like the back of your hand (that's the case with Oblivion). At least Dragon Age has an option to turn this off.

[egervari]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

I prefer BG and Planescape myself. I like complicated systems, worlds full of life and adventure, so many things to discover on those games. All new RPG are been released for consoles also, so I don't think that we'll see things getting better in the future. VO is becoming standard in today RPG, so no more free style dialogs like in BG. Many people are surprised why the PC isn't voiced, go figure. But the toolset is there, so we can hope that the community will create original content.

Is the conversation trees in BG1/2 really much better than DA:O? I would argue that they are not nearly as good. DA:O has a lot of variety. I think if you played BG2 again, you'd be surprised how shallow the story and individual conversations are. The fact that they are voiced plays little part in their quality. And honestly, I for one like the voiced conversations because the text is so damn small. I am blind in 1 eye and 20/400 in the other. If the text is small, I really have to strain to read it. I cannot just sit back in my seat and play... I need to be squarely facing my computer monitor... and that sucks. Fallout 3's font size should seriously be the standard font size with today's high resolutions. What the hell are developers thinking making the font sizes 2% of the total height of the screen?

I also enjoy complicated systems... but to a certain extent. I don't think Torment's system is too complex. NWN2 is 20 times more complicated. That's going in the wrong direction. I think fallout 1/2 and bg 1/2 are pretty straight-forward. I would say learning what all the spells do is the biggest hurdle for a new player. My first times playing BG... I did not know about the spells to remove mage protections... so I'd hack and hack and hack and not damage the mage. While the mage couldn't kill me, I just sat there hacking for 5 minutes, waiting for their protections to wear off. That's the kind of thing that can happen if you don't know what is available or you simply "miss" picking those spells up from a chest or crate or garbage bin.

[Tarquin Blkwd]

Games are Games



Time has a way to make them shine.



Now what we need is virtual reality:)

[egervari]

Kalcalan wrote...

Basically, games didn't take you by the hand to make sure you didn't stray from the path and never get lost.

Seriously, think about a game like Might and Magic VI the Mandate of Heaven, you had to go through so much hassle and so many quests just to get a title (the equivalent of specializations in Dragon Age) it was a challenge in itself. In that game to train a skill you had to talk to NPCs, ask them about a master that could teach you then go explore an area to spot that guy only to find out that he would only train you if you'd pay him, complete a quest, be good or evil... Or you'll discover that to become a master with a mace you'd to have a much higher strength than you had imagined.

It's interesting... because now I think a lot of that is bad. Don't get me wrong - I think getting a class upgrade should be a great deal. There should be some effort to getting it. What is more fascinating is that if you know what you are doing in M&M, you can get your class specializations extremely early... like level 5 or 10 I remember in M&M 8, you can get the cleric and dark elf titles at ridiculously low levels.

On the other hand, I think going around finding masters was more or less a waste of time. How fun is it, really, to just go around walking and hunting these idiots? The journal system sucked... and unless your mage had all the travel conveniences, you could spend hours just trying to find them all in the right order. This isn't "gameplay" - this is just plain tedious.

I know I used to do this when I played M&M back in the day. I didn't think it was as frastrating then as I do now... but in a way, I recognize that this is just an artificial way to pad the game. It just becomes so unwieldy to keep track of that I found myself saying, "Why bother?".

This is the same kind of complaint I have with inventory space... you could just travel back and forth until you eventually get all the items and sell them all... but what's the point? Is it really fun to go back in empty areas and traverse all the terrain or 6 levels of a dungeon just to pick up all the crap you couldn't pick up the first time? Since the outcome is "inevitable" anyway, I think it's simpler to just let the player have a much bigger inventory space.

And the same goes for the trainers - just give the player the ability to do this at level up rather than make the person scour across the land looking for those idiots.

Kalcalan wrote...
Fallout 1 had non linearity, great dialogue trees and it forced you to make choices. In comparison Fallout 3 is limited because it allows you to create a character who ultimately will be good at everything (something that was impossible in the first Fallouts). Quests in Fallout 3 are not as complicated as in the first Fallouts.

I definitely agree that your character in Fallout 3 is good at everything. The game does become too easy. By the time the addons roll around, you're level 22 or 23 and have all the best items and perks. It's hard to die at that point unless you are challenged with 3 super mutant overlords in a tight room.

I can't comment on the quests... but from what I played (several hours of fallout 1), I don't think the quests are as dynamic as nostalgia would dictate. In junktown, you can deal with the gang leader in only a few ways... and those same choices exist in fallout 3 as well. In fact, the choices are more obvious so you can explore them much more easily in fallout 3. Perhaps I have to play longer to see the depth of those choices in fallout 1/2 though.

Kalcalan wrote...

Games nowadays tend to rely too much on NPCs that can't be killed (Fallout 3) or situations where you have to initiate combat through dialogue and cutscenes (Dragon Age). Old games didn't.

I think this is a good thing. That way you can't "screw up" your game. I mean, what if you were forced to lay waste to all the quest npcs accidently... especially if you didn't do any of the quests but really wanted to? I find myself reloading at times like this... and since I forget to quick-save, I find myself doing big parts of the game all over again just because of these unexpected encounters. At least an auto-save before a conversation lets you avoid a lot of grief. To me, this is an improvement.

Sometimes those loose encounters felt like the game was in control of me rather than the other way around.

Kalcalan wrote...
There is also something that is quite irritating about this tendency to rely too much on level scaling. In the old days the game worlds didn't change because your character was getting better. In Might and Magic VI for instance you could go anywhere on the map and you'd only know that the area was too dangerous for your party because a monster could kill one of your characters with one hit. In Fallout 1 there was no level scaling either, you ran into a group of supermutants with a low level character who didn't even have a gun... well it was better luck next time vault dweller.

While I think level scaling has it's problems (I actually think it's better to balance out your content so that it's not so sparce for low-level players), I am on the side that those encounters are simply "your game ends here" sequences. The game happens to roll a dice to generate the "game over" random encounter that you can't beat. The player isn't really in control of their own fate, are they? Not really.

For me, this is a big problem, because as I get immersed into a game, I don't remember to save. So when I encounter something like this and I die, I have to do loads of stuff all over again. Man, several hours of wasted time for me is a big deal. It really is. Honestly, it would mean the difference of continuing to play the game and just saying "screw it" and deleting it from my hard drive.

Maybe that's my lack of patience or the sense of powerlessness I feel when it happens, but that's how I feel about it. I just have a hard time accepting that a random encounter destroys hours of work in the game.

Might & Magic honestly had a better system, because at least you had a chance to escape in such instances, and with ID Monster skills, you had an indication if the area would be too much for you or not.

Kalcalan wrote...

Games have definitely changed. It's difficult to say that without sounding like an old fart but a few years ago games offered more of a challenge. Nowadays games seem to target casual players who are mostly console players (no offense to anyone, I don't want to rekindle a PC vs console war, what I'm saying is that console players are generally perceived as being more casual or less dedicated if you prefer that term). As a consequence it seems to me that games are more and more linear and easy. Not only games are made in such a way that you have a flashing marker on your map telling you where to go but if you actually use a mod to turn those off you may be in trouble because some of these games don't provide enough information for you to play without such markers unless you already know the game like the back of your hand (that's the case with Oblivion). At least Dragon Age has an option to turn this off.

I agree with you. I think games should offer more challenge. Fallout 3 is way too easy. It's still immersive and fun, but once you get to level 15 or so... yeah, the whole game is way too easy. DA:O is actually much harder than the average game to be sure.

Still, there are cheap challenges like running to 3 golden bears in arcanum once you get out of shrouded hills... and to me, that's not challenge - that's just the developers putting in a random "game over". In older games, there were a lot of these and the consequences of running into them were just not fun.

Modifié par egervari, 01 décembre 2009 - 01:59 .

[Niten Ryu]

Last spring and summer I played thru all Infinity Engine games (as I do every few years) and some have aged better then others. Torment have absolutely hideous graphics (well, no change there as it's always been like that) but story and world are still best I've experienced. Baldur's Gate 2 is still powerful experience and high point of certain kind of CRPGs. Both Fallout and Fallout 2 are still fine games but Arcanum has aged horribly. I remember that it used to be one of my fav CRPGs but I couldn't even finish it during my last run ealier this year. Jagged Alliance 2 is still as good as ever.



I haven't played Gold Box games in 10 years so it's really hard to say anything objective about 'em. Too hard to compare 'em to modern games. NWN was never good to begin with and thus it's inferior game to Dragon Age. HotU was ok, but not was good as I remembered from my first run few years ago. NWN2 is ok and MotB is probably best expansion I've seen in many years. Morrowind and Oblivion are boring settings and game mechanics are not that good either. Fallout 3 is bit more interesting but only because I like the world aspect.



Games today are much easier in certain way then they were in 10 years ago. Console generation and increased development cost put limits what is acceptable game design. This don't mean that games are automtically worse somehow but they are different. Before developers could get away with all kinds of wacky mechanics and balance issues, now they have to be very careful what they can and cannot do. Dragon Age is solid, if very calculated modern CRPG. I found it's world aspect to be uninteresting and game mechanics average. I did like the group NPCs and absurd situations like casually talking while on fire. I wouldn't place it to the top of CRPGs from last 15 years but it's definately not the worst game either.

[Elvhen Veluthil]

The dialogs in BG1 & 2 felt much more alive. They didn't had the VO restrictions so they could write long dialogs, which were fun most of the time. For most parts in DAO I wished I could just skipped the long period that hearing a dialog take, I can read much faster. You have a point about people with eye problems, hadn't think about that. I have played BG 1 & 2 many times, even recently, and I think that DAO cannot reach their beauty.

[Statue]

I think some things have been lost in many new CRPGs. With the technology advances and the expectations from gamers for sparklies and such, and with CRPG developers trying so hard to broaden the appeal to gamers that traditionally weren't part of their market, some aspects that made CRPGs so appealing have been somewhat diluted or are given a backseat to other concerns. Key issues of traditional CRPGs often seem demoted to other concerns - there's less attention to detail in terms of the effectiveness of the ruleset, the implementation of central gameplay mechanics, the tactical nature of combat. We get pretty screens and high-production-value voice-acting, but we don't get finished skill descriptions or sufficient combat feedback for tactical play, or even a particularly effective way of being in control of the whole party; the design overall is more polished for casual gaming, less so for involved tactical gaming - when really it could quite easily have been made to work equally well for both playstyles.

I understand the needs to compete with the use of technology in other genres, and the need to broaden appeal to different gamers. It's a shame that some core mechanics and gameplay aspects of CRPGs seem to suffer so often as a result, especially when in my opinion they do not need to. It is possible to for CRPGs to be attractive and accessible to new gamers without giving up on or neglecting those other aspects.

Modifié par Statue, 01 décembre 2009 - 02:26 .

[Kalcalan]

Once they are unlocked specializations in Dragon Age are available for all your characters and every NPCs. That is just a cheap way to deal what could have been great quest material. In Might and Magic it was rewarding to get titles and stuff because of all the effort it implied (going for a walkthrough made things really easy so there always was that option for those who couldn't be bothered).

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. IMO too much convenience doesn't necessarily makes games better.

I've played a lot of Fallout 3 (even modded a bit) and Very Hard with a mod to reduce XP was the only way to enjoy the game. I also got rid of bobbleheads and fast travel. Now fast travel is certainly convenient but it really makes the game way easier and diminishes the importance of planning your journeys in the capital wasteland.

Believe me, it's not just nostalgia. In Fallout 2 there was a quest that went so deep that I only find out about it after countless runs through the game.

A little thing really but you could blackmail a doctor in Fallout 2 and if you later asked him to heal you he would poison you. That's the attention to details such as these that you wouldn't expect in a CRPG that made these games so memorable.

You can't "screw up" no matter what you do in games nowadays and I don't see that as an improvement. It means that you don't have to think about consequences to your actions. If you know that you need a particular item to finish a major quest then Dragon Age will make sure you pick it up whether you want to or not. At least Dragon Age allows you to screw up sidequests.

Knowing that whatever happens you will only face foes that match your level or challenge rating (to use the D&D terminology) is a pain because it means that you can't be surprised, you can't be in danger. That is a reason why I loved the mod that increased the number of spawns in Fallout 3. Knowing that you may run into 20 raiders means you have to be quick on your feet so to speak and that you have to be ready to stand up to the challenge.

It's all a matter of game balance. In a game world in which a kobold can kill your level one mage with a single arrow (Baldur's Gate) you feel more excitement than in a world in which it takes a mininuke at close range to make you blush (Fallout 3).

That being said, Fallout 3 is the perfect example of a flawed game that becomes awesome once you use mods. Despite some flaws Dragon Age has a rather good difficulty scale although I'm under the impression that it gets easier towards the end (but that may contribute to the epic feel of the end so it's not that bad actually).

Modifié par Kalcalan, 01 décembre 2009 - 02:17 .

[egervari]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

I agree with you, egervari, very well written. I would like to add, however, that if we consider KotOR older RPG then I can hardly see any modern ones. What was between KotOR and DA:O? I can remember NWN 2, The Witcher and Mass Effect, namely due to the fact that so called "action RPG" must not be considered RPG but rather a tutorial on mouse-clicks.

Thanks! I don't see Kotor as really an old game, but I did pull it out and install it. I actually had problems playing it because after I looted a corpse, the character was unable to move. I had to save and reload just to get the character to be "unstuck", so I couldn't really play it. I have no idea what is up with it honestly.

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...
Nonetheless, I support the tendency to leave practicalities like inventory management, eating, sleeping etc. since they have always been only a chore for me, and replace them with more gameplay and fantasy. However, NWN 2 failed greatly in this regard yet it was the most user-friendly game I have ever played. In particular, I had never seen before such predictable and shallow party members, a personification of obvious stereotypes. The story had a significant potential but it was partially wasted by the "goody-honest king" cliché and other black & white mundanities.

I felt that NWN2 was not user-friendly, especially compared to DA:O. There are loads of problems... like pressing "up" doesn't move the character "up", but rather "forward in the direction they are facing". Which actually makes it harder to control via the keyboard. Thus, it relies on mouse clicks for movement and using the keyboard to turn the camera... but this isn't as user-friendly as dragon age.

Then there's a lot of trouble getting your teammates to do stuff. The hold position, attack, etc. options were pretty frustrating to execute... and they often sprung traps and attacked enemies off screen when I never wanted them to. Of course, turning this off meant they were utterly retarded in combat... which made me want the user interface to be more like BG2.

And yeah, the party members in the main campaign, while a lot better than the original NWN, were nowhere near as good as something like Torment.

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...
I think that DA:O should be celebrated namely for the courage of BioWare to make finally a mature game where black and white are actually mixed into several tones of grey. I hope that will be the heft of future RPGs.

I totally agree.

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...
As I'm getting older it becomes more and more difficult to learn new interfaces, rules etc. For example, Arcanum was particularly difficult and it took me quite some time to learn how to develop my character and how to acquire a background in the game mechanics. I have never gotten into it though, so I ended somewhere in Tarant and never gotten back to it. This reminded me of BG 2 which, although being an excelent game, had very difficult rules if one wasn't familiar with paper AD&D. I remember being confused by the fact that the lower the number the better the statistic it represented, and that negative numbers were actually bonuses! In contrast, I never stop admiring how the authors managed to create such excelent atmosphere in Planescape: Torment almost exclusively by dialogues! (It gives a nice example that technical limits can provide for more creativity in other areas.)

I feel the same way. Learning 3.5 rules and all the prestige classes and mechanic quirks is exhausting. I honestly don't know how I managed to read up for 20 or 40 hours on AD&D rules and thought that was "acceptable" back then (learning about negative AC values, what the stats and spells actually do so you know which spells to pick for your sorceror and not gimp yourself, how to best build dual-classed characters, etc.). I just can't do it today.

Arcanum is such a promising game, and yet, the character development is so damn picky. I commend them on trying to make it so flexible... but at the same time, I think one would have to make 5 or 10 characters just to learn it... and replaying so many sections of the game over and over can get pretty tiring. Of course there are "best practices" when it comes to character development... but of course no new player is going to know those. What I found is that some abilities are way overpowered compared to other selections... and even then random encounters and the like will overpower your character anyway... like the level 15 thugs in Tarant that attack you out of the blue without warning.

I think atmosphere and style are incredibly important to RPGs... and at the end of the day, that's what I remember - not the bloated mechanics. Ironically, that's why I think games like Fallout 3 and DA:O are good games. Not that Torment and BG and other games are "bad". They have loads of atmosphere and style too. Of course, some games mechanics are simply too much to dive into these days, which create such a big barrier to entry that I can't invest the time to enjoy the good qualities.

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...
I hope that RPGs will turn away from the path leading them near action/RTS games and, instead, follow their own path focused on story and atmosphere. I also hope that the simplification of rules and practicalities will not overlap to the gameplay. In this respect, I wasn't particularly fond of the dialogue system used in Mass Effect because I was often left with no idea about the content of the reply I was going to choose. (And I refuse going through dialogues by the rule that "the upper right is Paragon and the upper left is Renegade" a vice versa. I don't consider dialogues complementary!)

A summary: Easier controls, game mechanics, rules and other practicalities on one hand, and digging deeper in the story, lore, atmosphere and overall experience on the other.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this entirely. I think DA:O is a step in the right direction on many accounts. If they can find some way to offer more combat variety and challenge without bloating the game mechanics, I think they'd strike the best balance.

[Dramonium]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

The dialogs in BG1 & 2 felt much more alive. They didn't had the VO restrictions so they could write long dialogs, which were fun most of the time. For most parts in DAO I wished I could just skipped the long period that hearing a dialog take, I can read much faster. You have a point about people with eye problems, hadn't think about that. I have played BG 1 & 2 many times, even recently, and I think that DAO cannot reach their beauty.

You know you can just enable subtitles and 'escape' your way through dialogs, right?

[Lasombra99]

I personally do not think one is better than the other. It really all depends on playing style. Games like NWN had a very different playing style than DA:O or even games like Planescape: Torment or Fallout 1/2. I think in the end, what makes a game better or not is your personal likes/dislikes and your enjoyment of the content and style of a game. Personally, nothing will ever take Torment's place in my heart, but DA:O is a highly enjoyable game for me at this time.

[egervari]

Statue wrote...

I think some things have been lost in many new CRPGs. With the technology advances and the expectations from gamers for sparklies and such, and with CRPG developers trying so hard to broaden the appeal to gamers that traditionally weren't part of their market, some aspects that made CRPGs so appealing have been somewhat diluted or are given a backseat to other concerns. Key issues of traditional CRPGs often seem demoted to other concerns - there's less attention to detail in terms of the effectiveness of the ruleset, the implementation of central gameplay mechanics, the tactical nature of combat. We get pretty screens and high-production-value voice-acting, but we don't get finished skill descriptions or sufficient combat feedback for tactical play, or even a particularly effective way of being in control of the whole party; the design overall is more polished for casual gaming, less so for involved tactical gaming - when really it could quite easily have been made to work equally well for both playstyles.

I understand the needs to compete with the use of technology in other genres, and the need to broaden appeal to different gamers. It's a shame that some core mechanics and gameplay aspects of CRPGs seem to suffer so often as a result, especially when in my opinion they do not need to. It is possible to for CRPGs to be attractive and accessible to new gamers without giving up on or neglecting those other aspects.

Yeah, I totally agree with this. This is one area that has suffered. While I like that game mechanics are getting simpler... that's a bonus for diving in quickly and actually "enjoying the game"... making it too simple has it's draw backs. 

Honestly, when one of the bioware developers said it would be too much effort and too much of a stretch for their budget to simply edit skill descriptions to include numeric values and %'s... I just gave up on the patch team at that point.