65 réponses à ce sujet

[Leather_Rebel90]

I'd say they have gotten worse over the years. I'm sorry but I still turn on good ol' HeXen 2 to have fun. You just can't beat the simplicity yet awesome fun it gives you, along with an awesome story and even more intense feeling of immersion. Graphics ain't everything, give me a good, well rehearsed and orchastrated eery soundtrack.

[Auraad]

For me, RPGs have neither become better nor worse. They have changed - somethings are better, others are worse.

[LovelyMover]

Thing have moved forward but many aspects of DA appear to have stood still. I was shocked about the retention of "path" movement restrictions; additionally, (& what really stopped me playing NWN2), is the combat system, it's still point & click, all they've done it add a splash of WoW style activate special abilities, (and that's no recommendation); it may not be to everyones taste but DDO's combat system is seriously immersive it would have been mind blowing to have the option to switch to different party members & indulge in that kind of combat in DA. The only "old" game I still go back to time & again is JA2, (not exactly an rpg but still haven't found anything that really replaces it).



There are lots of better "bits" to be found in older games in terms of character type & development, but there are many more immersive improvements in more recent games; I was hoping that DA would be the game that took the best of the recent & added it to the complexity of the old. If that was the dev's ambition it's failed imo. Still love the game but was expecting so much more.

[Jonfon_ire]

Dalyaria wrote...

Niten Ryu wrote...

Morrowind and Oblivion are boring settings

How can you say that a game with dark elf wizards lording from huge mushrooms is a boring setting? 

Agreed. Morrowind was a fantastically weird setting. Oblivion (and Dragon Age to be fair) both slightly disappointed me with their fairly by-the-numbers fantasy settings (which is weird considering Oblivion is the same game world as Morrowind).

At the start of Oblivion I was a bit worried I was going to be attacked by Lawyers of Tolkien coming out of the tower. Even more so when I came across my first Gate.

Dragon Age tweaked the old tropes around a bit, but still is pretty by-the-numbers in it's setting. The Elf backgrounds are cool, but I hope with an Expansion we get to go somewhere a bit different and imaginative than "pseudo-Western Europe with some Elves and Dwarves under attack from Orcs-by-another-name". Love the game but the setting is wearing thin.

[hangmans tree]

Morrowind was (and still is) refreshing. The wierdness of landscapes, the BOOKS!, the lore...plenty to number...

What was great? No glowing markers "go here - talk to this one". You red the description of an area, and SEARCHED. The same goes for Fallout 1 & 2.

I remember wlaking around and meeting Daedra for the first time, and on low level...I used EVERYTHING in my inventory to kill that thing. Arrows, shurikens, darts ( most of which were enchanted) and all other stuff like scrolls and potions. The gap of power between us was that humongus. That is captivating, that is immersive.

When I reached high level and found really decent artifacts my hereo was someone to recon with.



I like DAO most for its narrative. Its nicely done. I know much of the themes are cliche, but its craftly served imo. Characters are a strong feature of this title.



Back on topic; games seem to deteriorate in terms of consistency, logic, genuine creativity story-wise. A good puzzle, that I remember of, I had to solve was introduced in KOTOR/KOTOR2. The model seems to be tailored more and more towards lazy-thinking - conformity. The excuse may be the average gamer has less and less time for games in general and they like to opimize the story and content to match the time the gamer invests in the game - I mean to keep his/hers interest long enough.

Longer games wont sell as good? Or the devs lack in creativity and potential to come up with good stories? I have no problem in saving and coming back another day to finish some quest. Do other (you people) have problem with this, am I the only one enjoing and taking my time?

So I ask why are there so many simplifications, minimalis even in the game developement? I can name many titles in all genres that advertised as groundbreaking and whatever but in the end all high marks that could be attributed to them was graphics/engine evolvement.



In summery - things get simpler and simpler, but they say to us that they are evolving. We are becoming iconographic society, so its not a surprise really. And while being simpler and more "colourfull" at the same time, we lose the values that made rpgs great in the first place.



PS

sorry bout this chaotic post, Im writing in a hurry (haste? ) - lots of mistakes I bet, thanks for reading.

[Romeriez Galenar]

There are so many great comments, and I find myself surprised at the amount of great discussion here. It really gladdens my heart to see this.



Now to get on topic..



I feel like RPG's are taking a turn toward a more fuzzy friendly feeling direction. DA:O in particular seems to be really dumbed down in regards to difficulty. The character creator, which I downloaded before getting the game really disappointed me. I could tell from it that the game was taking a huge swing toward the Mass Effect/Kotor end of the spectrum. With minimal character customization.



Now don't get me wrong I enjoyed both Mass Effect and Kotor, but they really seemed so easy to the point where so little thought was required to progress and the character advancement was pointless. Oblivion is the same way. I really loved the game, but hated the bland rules. If Oblivion had been blessed with some kind of leveling system that made sense it would have been the game of games to me. (Francesco's mod really really helped)



Dragon Age isn't a bad game, it's just not a stellar game. I've noticed a trend in Bioware games. A...reusing of plots and characters from one game to another. More than once I got the feeling that Dragon Age was just Mass Effect taking place in Ferelden. I realize that a lot of things have been done in regards to plot and ect, and maybe it's just that 'Bioware' touch that makes me feel that way. If it is, then perhaps they could use an infusion of new blood to bring some truly new ideas to the system.

[Impresario]

I think over the last few years what we've seen is that the boundaries that define certain genres are becoming more fluid. I think that is a good thing b/c theoretically, it should foster innovation. I'd like to see gaming get to the point where we don't have to define the game by it's genre. Meaning, it is organic enough to satisfy the cravings of people who enjoy a good story, challenging puzzles, engrossing character development and exciting action--all taking place in a living breathing world. We're not there yet.



Of all the recent mainstream developers, I think Rockstar has shown the most innovation w/ GTAIV's implementation of in-game entertainment elements (tv shows, internet, comedy clubs etc.) I think most recent RPG developers have dropped the ball by not incorporating or taking advantage of the rich legacy that exists from adventure gaming (for example, Jane Jensen’s Gabriel Knight series). I would prefer better and more frequent puzzles that really twist your mind over fetch quests any day. I'd like to see game-cities as populated and vibrant as those in Assassins Creed II but w/ an underlying narrative depth that goes beyond what that game offers.



DAO is a bit of a throwback but w/ better combat--still I would not consider it a very innovative game at all. The lack of innovation makes the game world very static and flat. By now, we almost expect that from Bio and overlook the NPC's who stand around in one place and player characters that can't even sit down--b/c we know we're gong to be treated to a good story. Is it enough or are they standing too much on there laurels? I think over the next 5 years some developer is going to really floor us by synthesizing the best elements from these disparate approaches (Bethesda, Bio, LionH, Rockstar etc.) and that future game will become the new benchmark for comparison

[XOGHunter246]

npc on oblivion are like robots yes sir no sir and the way they look at me is creepy i don't get the same feeling as dragon age and also on oblivion your mainly trying to level a skill more then fighting as certain skills need high levels this is what bores most people. The again RPG have both improved and haven't some are good others are great there will always be one or two that are bad.

[Solica]

I'll also say they've become generally "worse". And it's no looking backwards through rose tinted glasses. I can play those games whenever I want, and I did not long ago.

I think the hope is that Dragon Age will feel gloriously classic, when I've finished it. And by all means, it's doing great sofar.

But to be completely honest, there are a number of disappointments. That I was young when I played Baldur's Gate, and that I had to wait until middle age before being able to play a true successor. That cRPGs haven't developed into the directions which I thought I envisioned and hoped for. On the contrary they have distanced themselves from that by becoming more 'streamlined'. I understand and accept that we have moved towards bigger development efforts, for games for a wider audience. Remains to see wether BW's gamble to try to straddle both sides of the fence (with DA:O) pays off. Financially, I mean. I'm happy enough.

[Solica]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

memtz wrote...

WRPGs: The open-endness from Bethesda RPGs and reliance on too much action, less skills has killed it for me. The disadvantage that open-ended RPGs brought is the lack of good stories, unique characters and settings. Elder Scrolls (Morrowind and Oblivion) felt extremely bland and generic to me. A simple comparison of the first 2 Fallouts and Fallout 3 points this out.

Exactly. Many times I honestly tried to play Bethesda games but every time I ended up ashamed how I was wasting my time by doing nothing, either physically or intellectually. Like playing Sims - "babablabububle ... and my Social increased wow, now to do some bench-presses".

You're all entitled to your opinion. But it is just opinion, not wisdom. I happen to like both types of games, both Bioware's and Bethesda's. My two classics of all times are Baldur's Gate and Morrowind. They are very different kind of games and you can't approach them the same way. The Bethesda game bashing that takes place here on Bioware's forums is, to me, just as ignorant and clueless as when Final Fantasy and GTA players drop in to whine and complain about Dragon Age. You might as well just keep it to yourself, because what you have to say is just as much nonsense. And to be fair, the same goes for everybody that thinks Bioware's games should be more like Bethesda's. (though just a little bit, might not hurt )

[Lil Kis]

Fallout 3 and Ovlivion were horrible games because they had hardly any story to it. RPG's are supposed to be about characters and story not just gameplay. I think J RPG's are better then W RPG's because they usually always focus on th story and characters but their more cliched. Mass Effect was another horrible RPG really boring...too short of a game and a boring quick story with boring characters. My favorite RPG of all time is ~Xenogears~

Playstation 1 had the best RPG's of all time on it....games like

Xenogears
Suikoden 1, and 2
Lunar 1
Final Fantasy 8, 9
etc.

Modifié par Lil Kis, 02 décembre 2009 - 07:33 .

[Targonis1]

Fantasy games have clearly evolved over the years, but the chance to really roleplay, and decide for yourself the personality of your character is something that has taken a back seat in most games. In that regard, the game that REALLY has let you roleplay the best has been Planescape: Torment. In that particular game, who your character was came down to how you played the character, the way you treated others, and how you developed your character in terms of stats. You could be a real SOB in that game, and there was dialog for it, or if you wanted to be someone very good, you could be that way too. Others also had their responses that evolved based on how you deal with situations, and that was a great experience.



Dragon Age adds a lot of voice acting, 3D graphics, and so on, but as a result, there are limits with a limited budget to what they could do. Still, Dragon Age DOES have a fair amount of choices for how you deal with NPCs and party members, and it does make a difference. You can see the influence from the days of Baldur's Gate 2, where party members had a fleshed out background, and you have side-quests based on party members, which helps bring the characters to life.



A big downside to the new generation of games is the focus on increasing stats as you play, rather than starting with an acceptable character, and just needing the experience to make the most of those stats. This is where the game systems need to get back on track toward making ROLEPLAYING more of the key to success or failure than building up stats and weapons to fight more and more powerful(physically at least) enemies. Gone are the days when a boss could be someone fairly weak physically, yet with so much magical ability that lower level characters can't get near them, let alone hurt them. And that is what I see is the flaw in the direction things have gone.



Now, a big part of this has been caused in no small part in game developers following in the steps of Dungeons and Dragons. If the official Dungeons and Dragons game system had never followed the idea of "every few levels you can boost the stat of your choice", then we might not see it in computer games to the extent that we do. And it call comes back to the GAME SYSTEM used behind the game. Is it a system that really is focused on roleplaying, or is it to cater to the younger crowd that don't really understand the difference between fantasy action gaming and true roleplaying?



Now, an easy solution to this is to make it so characters grow automatically based on how they are played. The Elder Scrolls games do this to an extent with the skill systems, but the developers broke the system by adding character levels on top of it.



So, how SHOULD a good RPG work so that it would work both in pen and paper form as well as in a game?



First off, the concept of hit points is mostly broken in most modern games. Bioware has done a good job fixing many of the problems, but really, what are hit points in the first place? If you have defense ability, and stamina, and the game tracks the actions the character does, then you have the perfect way to let character actions let the character develop, without needing artificial methods like picking what stats to increase as he/she/it levels up. You also don't need to pick what combat "moves", or spells to learn, because you go to trainers for these things when the time comes, or you spend the effort to work on these things yourself(with the possibility of learning things wrong). So, hit points SHOULD be how much damage can be taken before going unconscious, without stamina being included. So, will hit points go up all that much each level for every character?



So, presentation has improved, but until Dragon Age, I haven't seen a really good RPG in a long time. Oblivion may have been good eye candy for some, but as an RPG, it didn't really hold up. It all goes back to "sand box" vs. story, and Oblivion just lacked a lot in the story area. I just hope that we see games continue to evolve going forward, with Dragon Age finally swinging things back in the right direction, where you CAN alter things based on how you treat others in the game world.

[Targonis1]

Lil Kis wrote...

Fallout 3 and Ovlivion were horrible games because they had hardly any story to it. RPG's are supposed to be about characters and story not just gameplay. I think J RPG's are better then W RPG's because they usually always focus on th story and characters but their more cliched. Mass Effect was another horrible RPG really boring...too short of a game and a boring quick story with boring characters. My favorite RPG of all time is ~Xenogears~

Playstation 1 had the best RPG's of all time on it....games like

Xenogears
Suikoden 1, and 2
Lunar 1
Final Fantasy 8, 9
etc.

When a game is designed for consoles first, then the focus is on action and keeping people interested and excited to play.   Storyline takes a back seat to lots of action on a console.    When a game is designed as a good PC game, complexity and depth tend to become the priority, since computers evolve a LOT faster than consoles will.   This means that while a game may be too complex to play on your average computer today, in four years(when the game is ready), the high end system of today will only be a mid range or lower system in four years, and developers can plan for that.

So, in four years....what will happen to consoles?    Will they be as powerful as a Radeon 5970(dual GPU Radeon 5870)?    How about processing power in consoles, will there be enough processing power to handle a crowded market scene with 150 NPCs wandering around, talking to each other, buying items, stealing(thieves), and so on?   We could expect computers in four years to provide these things in mid level systems(Radeon 5970 will be higher than integrated graphics, but will be the level of a $100 vid card in four years), so developers need to decide what to target.   Computer processors as well....we can expect the very lowest end computers in four years to be quad core 3GHz, with the high end being 12 core running at the equivilent of 4GHz or faster by then.


A console game taken to a PC tends to feel weak on the PC because it doesn't incorporate most of the strengths of a PC, while a PC version taken to a console may feel like it is a good console game, even if it feels weak compared to the PC version.    The Radeon 4890(not even a terribly new card these days), or a Geforce 260 are so far beyond what the consoles can provide that the graphics on a console WILL have to be toned down to let things work.    Dragon Age: Origins is clearly a game designed for a PC, and toned down to work on a console, and that is why it is doing so well.

[EightManArmy]

I find that RPGs have in general become more bogged down by crap *cough* Two Worlds *cough*

Still maybe two RPGs a year will shine through as amazingly fun, my choices being Demon's Souls and of course DA:O.

[wonko33]

Yeah, nostalgia is not what it used to be...

I think it was easier to have deep stories and many side quests in the old games (like Ultima IV) because they did not take much work to add, Now adding content or explorable areas is a huge amount of work.

So maybe we will never games with that much content anymore. But I think we have a good one here with DAO, much re-playability and good size content.

It is funny that even with the better graphics, all the visual inputs, and voice acting we have now, It's not having a huge effect on my feeling of immersion. I remember caring for Boo, or Iolo (ultima) just as much as I do with the DAO companions.

On the other hand, being able to customize the way my character looks did help. I cared more for my character in Fallout 3 than in 1  & 2. And many times I will not wear certain armor because my character doesn't look good in them.  (my fallout 3 character who was stealthy, wore a duster and a fedora for the whole game, even if I had power armors and such. And I won't wear the DLC helm I got in DAO with my mage character)


As for the OP, i would say just different.

Modifié par wonko33, 02 décembre 2009 - 08:03 .