942 réponses à ce sujet

[Barry Bathernak]

this is going no where since we cant agree on anything here,its times like this i wish the was an Armageddon counter for these forums like in rise of nations so that some things would just die and not turn into this pointless repeating cycle... like in that game with weight with affects.

Modifié par Barry Bathernak, 29 mars 2012 - 03:01 .

[Eivea]

Since we are on topic of what each of us want, I was reading a discussion on cRPGs where I read this quote which nails it for me:

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

The real kicker here is that recently Baldur's Gate 2 was voted for Game Dev's favorite yet noone seems interested to develop a game like it anymore.

Perhaps it's time to accept that the large action loving crowd is the new target audience for RPG makers and it's time to move on.

At least we still have the Infinity Engine classics who 10 years later still hold a huge replay value and with a simple resolution patch can still hold their own even visually compared to even modern titles.

[Kate the Owlhearted]

I think everyone here is making great points. One thing to consider is that Bioware games are distrubted by EA Games. In turn EA games is owned by Vivendi Universal who would love nothing more than to scuttle their gaming franchises. I don't know why but that is the word. I think EA has been putting the pressure on Bioware to release games as fast as possible and it is coming at the cost of the storylines in both ME and DA.

Also, as the latter posts have mentioned, you can only listen to your fans so much. There are some hardcore gamers who are normally the most vocal that want these companies to do things their way and their way only. That is especially true when you get into a turn based RPG. I would hope Bioware is cautious in listening to their fans. They need to listen but listening too much will backfire. It's a tenuous balance at best.

While I don't think Bioware has the luxury to be Bethesda and wait 5 years between the release of video games. I do think they should above all else, take 6 months and find a way to get their groove back. They need to slow down some and not rush into making DA:III. I know the pressure is on them to do so but I think many of us would rather wait for a satisfying story and game than get another Dragon Age: II. Not that Dragon Age: II was utter drivel but it could have been way better than mediocre. The same as ME: 3 could have been better than it was. DA:II and ME:3 were the equivalent of the student being a genius and slacks off because he's bored. Bioware does need to be called out on that so they can learn from that mistake.

At the same time, we as fans need to put our trust in Bioware to deliver a satisfying game and hopefully learning from their mistakes. Bullying and complaining to get what you want will only make things worse, Bioware and other gaming companies have a duty to do what will a)Satisfy the fans that are comitted to the franchise b)bring in new fans c)allow those who are in creative control of the game express themselves freely. The responsibility for decisions is ultimately on them and they need to do what they need to do to make everyone happy. The best thing they should do is take the most common suggestions. If everyone were willing to work together, I would suggest that a few groups gather online and suggest 5-10 points that everyone could agree on what they liked and what they didn't like about DA:O and DA:II. Since no one online seems to get along, I doubt that will ever happen.

I think the one point everyone can agree on is that we want to see a higher quality than what we saw in DA:II and ME:3. What does that mean? I don't know. But the only way Bioware will figure that out is if they take the time to smell the roses and reflect on the issues that have brought them to the ME and DA predicament.

[Well]

Eivea wrote...

Since we are on topic of what each of us want, I was reading a discussion on cRPGs where I read this quote which nails it for me:

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

The real kicker here is that recently Baldur's Gate 2 was voted for Game Dev's favorite yet noone seems interested to develop a game like it anymore.

Perhaps it's time to accept that the large action loving crowd is the new target audience for RPG makers and it's time to move on.

At least we still have the Infinity Engine classics who 10 years later still hold a huge replay value and with a simple resolution patch can still hold their own even visually compared to even modern titles.

I will have to show it to my friend.He is a Big Diablo fan.We have argue over which is better for a decade.I like D for H&K and mfing but BG was the best rpg.

[omnitremere]

Eivea wrote...

Since we are on topic of what each of us want, I was reading a discussion on cRPGs where I read this quote which nails it for me:

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

The real kicker here is that recently Baldur's Gate 2 was voted for Game Dev's favorite yet noone seems interested to develop a game like it anymore.

Perhaps it's time to accept that the large action loving crowd is the new target audience for RPG makers and it's time to move on.

At least we still have the Infinity Engine classics who 10 years later still hold a huge replay value and with a simple resolution patch can still hold their own even visually compared to even modern titles.

I've always been curious do you think it's possible to enjoy those types of games if you started in the Cinematic Era? My first RPG was KOTOR.  I"ve never played any of the NWN or Baldur's Gate games.  Do they stand up even if the look is completely outdated? I tried to play the first Fallout and just couldn't get through it because the interface was so ****ty by today's standards to me.

[AkiKishi]

I012345 wrote...

Eivea wrote...

Since we are on topic of what each of us want, I was reading a discussion on cRPGs where I read this quote which nails it for me:

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

The real kicker here is that recently Baldur's Gate 2 was voted for Game Dev's favorite yet noone seems interested to develop a game like it anymore.

Perhaps it's time to accept that the large action loving crowd is the new target audience for RPG makers and it's time to move on.

At least we still have the Infinity Engine classics who 10 years later still hold a huge replay value and with a simple resolution patch can still hold their own even visually compared to even modern titles.

I've always been curious do you think it's possible to enjoy those types of games if you started in the Cinematic Era? My first RPG was KOTOR.  I"ve never played any of the NWN or Baldur's Gate games.  Do they stand up even if the look is completely outdated? I tried to play the first Fallout and just couldn't get through it because the interface was so ****ty by today's standards to me.

Some people love retro gaming some don't. I enjoy retrogaming RPGs but not other types of games, and I prefer them on the smaller screens of handhelds where the graphical quality is not so much of an issue.

Older games that came with manuals that could kill a small rodent if you dropped it, they take some time to get into. It's not like the pick up and play of todays games where you have a tutorial on hand.
BG is a complicated game for anyone not familiar with the D&D system but there is a lot of stuff there that you just won't get in a recent game. Same with Fallout, not going to argue with what you said, it's true. But if you get beyond that, then the game is very good. New Vegas captures some of the essence of the original (well the second one more) and is well worth a look.

[omnitremere]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I012345 wrote...

Eivea wrote...

Since we are on topic of what each of us want, I was reading a discussion on cRPGs where I read this quote which nails it for me:

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

The real kicker here is that recently Baldur's Gate 2 was voted for Game Dev's favorite yet noone seems interested to develop a game like it anymore.

Perhaps it's time to accept that the large action loving crowd is the new target audience for RPG makers and it's time to move on.

At least we still have the Infinity Engine classics who 10 years later still hold a huge replay value and with a simple resolution patch can still hold their own even visually compared to even modern titles.

I've always been curious do you think it's possible to enjoy those types of games if you started in the Cinematic Era? My first RPG was KOTOR.  I"ve never played any of the NWN or Baldur's Gate games.  Do they stand up even if the look is completely outdated? I tried to play the first Fallout and just couldn't get through it because the interface was so ****ty by today's standards to me.

Some people love retro gaming some don't. I enjoy retrogaming RPGs but not other types of games, and I prefer them on the smaller screens of handhelds where the graphical quality is not so much of an issue.

Older games that came with manuals that could kill a small rodent if you dropped it, they take some time to get into. It's not like the pick up and play of todays games where you have a tutorial on hand.
BG is a complicated game for anyone not familiar with the D&D system but there is a lot of stuff there that you just won't get in a recent game. Same with Fallout, not going to argue with what you said, it's true. But if you get beyond that, then the game is very good. New Vegas captures some of the essence of the original (well the second one more) and is well worth a look.

Yeah New Vegas was what made me try the first Fallout.  People kept saying that it was a callback to the originals more so than the Bethesda versions.  I might have to give it another shot.  What about the NWN games? Are they worth a look? I'm asking because I probably won't be playing more ME3 until more DLC comes out.  So I'm kind of in a RPG lull right now.  

[AkiKishi]

I012345 wrote...
Yeah New Vegas was what made me try the first Fallout.  People kept saying that it was a callback to the originals more so than the Bethesda versions.  I might have to give it another shot.  What about the NWN games? Are they worth a look? I'm asking because I probably won't be playing more ME3 until more DLC comes out.  So I'm kind of in a RPG lull right now.  

NwN was more about the toolset and multiplayer. The official campaign that came with NwN was quite horrible. You have your PC and a henchmen and no party. It was a real step back from BG unless you liked the mulitplayer toolset direction.
New Vegas is definately closer in spirit to the old games than Fallout 3. I still enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot though.

Not sure about NwN2 I'd given up on PC gaming by the time it came out.

[Pzykozis]

I012345 wrote...
Yeah New Vegas was what made me try the first Fallout.  People kept saying that it was a callback to the originals more so than the Bethesda versions.  I might have to give it another shot.  What about the NWN games? Are they worth a look? I'm asking because I probably won't be playing more ME3 until more DLC comes out.  So I'm kind of in a RPG lull right now.  

I enjoyed NWN and 2 and I first played them last year or the year before, I'm no good with the old BG games, they're fairly easy to play, but the start of 1 in particular is fairly.. luck driven, amount of times I've killed a wolf, only to come across another one and have it permanently kill characters and this is at the beginning of the game where my character can only attack, Meh. BG 2 is a lot better but I still kinda glanced off of it.

[omnitremere]

Hmmmmm okay. Thanks guys I really appreciate the responses.

[Realmzmaster]

Kate the Owlhearted wrote...

I think everyone here is making great points. One thing to consider is that Bioware games are distrubted by EA Games. In turn EA games is owned by Vivendi Universal who would love nothing more than to scuttle their gaming franchises. I don't know why but that is the word. I think EA has been putting the pressure on Bioware to release games as fast as possible and it is coming at the cost of the storylines in both ME and DA.

EA Games is not owned by Vivendi Universal. EA Games is owned by Electronic Arts which is a company that is traded on the stock exchanges. You are thinking of Vivendi Games which merged with Activision to form Activision-Blizzard makers of Warcraft, Starcraft and WOW.

I think the one point everyone can agree on is that we want to see a higher quality than what we saw in DA:II and ME:3. What does that mean? I don't know. But the only way Bioware will figure that out is if they take the time to smell the roses and reflect on the issues that have brought them to the ME and DA predicament.

Gamers will tell you that the quality of ME3 is amazing. The problem the gamers have it is the ending. The rest of the game is excellent some call it a masterpiece even on the ME3 forum. 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 29 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All the NPCs think you've agreed to fight the Blight, but you're not required actually to do so.

Your own dialog choices actually indicate that you are fighting the blight.

Yes.  CHOICES.

You chose to have your character claim he's fighting the Blight.  This never happens without your consent.  That there are no other alternatives is irrelevant.  The Warden says he's fighting the Blight because you picked a dialogue option that said so.

That's the difference.  DAO's dialogue system always lets the player choose.  DA2's routinely does not.

edit: By which I mean that you can't maintain character consistency without having accepted the mission to fight the blight.

BUt you know that when you're choosing.  DA2's mistake is in breaking the character without any warning.

[Eivea]

I012345 wrote...

Eivea wrote...

Since we are on topic of what each of us want, I was reading a discussion on cRPGs where I read this quote which nails it for me:

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

The real kicker here is that recently Baldur's Gate 2 was voted for Game Dev's favorite yet noone seems interested to develop a game like it anymore.

Perhaps it's time to accept that the large action loving crowd is the new target audience for RPG makers and it's time to move on.

At least we still have the Infinity Engine classics who 10 years later still hold a huge replay value and with a simple resolution patch can still hold their own even visually compared to even modern titles.

I've always been curious do you think it's possible to enjoy those types of games if you started in the Cinematic Era? My first RPG was KOTOR.  I"ve never played any of the NWN or Baldur's Gate games.  Do they stand up even if the look is completely outdated? I tried to play the first Fallout and just couldn't get through it because the interface was so ****ty by today's standards to me.

I think you can still enjoy them if you give them the chance. Like others mentioned they can be a bit hard to get to. If you enjoy a great and trully branching story, you will love them.

As for them looking bad, I think 2d aged quite well, the games still have amazing detail for their time, and with a little effort you can run them at modern resolutions. Here is an example, BG2 in 1920x1200:

Modifié par Eivea, 29 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[Realmzmaster]

I012345 wrote...

Hmmmmm okay. Thanks guys I really appreciate the responses.

Some of the old school games are good and a few were state of the art for their time, but they had their flaws. Most of the storys and plots of the old games were very linear. Most of the mechanics were D & D based. Some knowledge of D & D helped especially if the manual sucked in its explanations.
A lot of micromanagement. The graphics are not bad for bitmapped, but compared to today''s games suffer greatly in that department.

I like :

BG1 & BG2
NWN 1 & 2 especially Mask of the Betrayer for NWN2
Wizardry series
Ultima Series
Might and Magic series
Elder scrolls: Morrowind
Temple of Elemental Evil
Arcanum of Stramworks & Magick Obscura

Alternate Reality: City and Dungeon (1985 for real old school)

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 29 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All the NPCs think you've agreed to fight the Blight, but you're not required actually to do so.

Your own dialog choices actually indicate that you are fighting the blight.

Yes.  CHOICES.

You chose to have your character claim he's fighting the Blight.  This never happens without your consent.  That there are no other alternatives is irrelevant.  The Warden says he's fighting the Blight because you picked a dialogue option that said so.

That's the difference.  DAO's dialogue system always lets the player choose.  DA2's routinely does not.

edit: By which I mean that you can't maintain character consistency without having accepted the mission to fight the blight.

BUt you know that when you're choosing.  DA2's mistake is in breaking the character without any warning.

Ok, but is it a choice if you are not offered any method ot choose not to fight? That's kind of the point I'm getting at. The only way to not fight the blight is outside of dialog, by not actually doing any of the quests. Everything about the dialog trees takes you to the blight.

[Kate the Owlhearted]

Realmzmaster wrote....
EA Games is not owned by Vivendi Universal. EA Games is owned by Electroic Arts which is a company that is traded on the stock exchanges. You are thinking of Vivendi Games which merged with Activision to form Activision-Blizzard makers of Warcraft, Starcraft and WOW.

I thought at one point Vivendi Universal was the primary shareholder though. I could be wrong. The point is EA is obviously putting pressure on to release these games quickly. Which meant sloppy ending for ME:3 and the consequences were dire for DA:II. My point is I hope Bioware has learned their lesson and takes their time with their video games in the future despite pressure to do otherwise.

And of course ME:3 is overall amazing but the flaws that do come up seem to be the issue Bioware is having with rushing their projects and getting sloppy. To me it just boils down to taking their time and using some form of quality control.

Modifié par Kate the Owlhearted, 29 mars 2012 - 06:59 .

[Realmzmaster]

Kate the Owlhearted wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote....
EA Games is not owned by Vivendi Universal. EA Games is owned by Electroic Arts which is a company that is traded on the stock exchanges. You are thinking of Vivendi Games which merged with Activision to form Activision-Blizzard makers of Warcraft, Starcraft and WOW.

I thought at one point Vivendi Universal was the primary shareholder though. I could be wrong. The point is EA is obviously putting pressure on to release these games quickly. Which meant sloppy ending for ME:3 and the consequences were dire for DA:II. My point is I hope Bioware has learned their lesson and takes their time with their video games in the future despite pressure to do otherwise.

And of course ME:3 is overall amazing but the flaws that do come up seem to be the issue Bioware is having with rushing their projects and getting sloppy. To me it just boils down to taking their time and using some form of quality control.

No Vivendi is the major shareholder in Activision-Blizzard with 52%.  Are you are assuming that EA and Bioware are different companies? Bioware is a division of EA, EA bought them for $860 million. According to the developers at Bioware they set the time table for both ME3 and DA2. Also realize that the good doctors that founded Bioware (Ray and Greg) are two of the bosses at EA. If Ray and Greg said their teams at Bioware could deliver by a particular date and their teams agreed then the President , other bosses and stockholders are going to hold them to that date unless the good doctors tell them otherwise.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 29 mars 2012 - 07:41 .

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ok, but is it a choice if you are not offered any method ot choose not to fight? That's kind of the point I'm getting at. The only way to not fight the blight is outside of dialog, by not actually doing any of the quests. Everything about the dialog trees takes you to the blight.

There was a conversation in Tales of Monkey Island, where you are given a large number of conversation choices. All of them except for the last one ("... fine") are variations of "No". Selecting any of the nos results in Elaine saying some variation of "pleeeeease?", eventually forcing the player to select the yes option. Is this really a choice?

I would venture to say that it is technically a choice, but not a meaningful one. As near as I can figure, Sylvius is saying that the blight decision is technically a choice, and the_one is saying it is not a meaningful one. I would venture that most people care about being offered meaningful choices, and care much less than Sylvius does about technical choices.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Ok, but is it a choice if you are not offered any method ot choose not to fight? That's kind of the point I'm getting at. The only way to not fight the blight is outside of dialog, by not actually doing any of the quests. Everything about the dialog trees takes you to the blight.

There was a conversation in Tales of Monkey Island, where you are given a large number of conversation choices. All of them except for the last one ("... fine") are variations of "No". Selecting any of the nos results in Elaine saying some variation of "pleeeeease?", eventually forcing the player to select the yes option. Is this really a choice?

I would venture to say that it is technically a choice, but not a meaningful one. As near as I can figure, Sylvius is saying that the blight decision is technically a choice, and the_one is saying it is not a meaningful one. I would venture that most people care about being offered meaningful choices, and care much less than Sylvius does about technical choices.

Except that I'm pretty sure that Sylvius wants to be allowed to not fight the blight.

[Morroian]

Kate the Owlhearted wrote...

And of course ME:3 is overall amazing but the flaws that do come up seem to be the issue Bioware is having with rushing their projects and getting sloppy. To me it just boils down to taking their time and using some form of quality control.

BW were given an extra 6 months to finish ME3, the issue with the ending is in the conception and writing not the execution as it would be if it was rushed.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Except that I'm pretty sure that Sylvius wants to be allowed to not fight the blight.

He wants a lot of things. He's defending his belief that it is a choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ok, but is it a choice if you are not offered any method ot choose not to fight? That's kind of the point I'm getting at. The only way to not fight the blight is outside of dialog, by not actually doing any of the quests. Everything about the dialog trees takes you to the blight.

BioWare's games always give us a focused core narrative.  You have to follow it if you want to play much of the game.  Sure, there are periods in the middle where you can do other things, but for the most part the big choices are pretty fixed.

The important difference between DA2 and BioWare's ealier games is that DA2 doesn't actually let the player make those choices.  At big plot moments like these, there are no real alternatives in any of their games, but the pre-DA2 games still let the player be the one who ultimately made the selection.  The Warden tells Flemeth he'll help because the player chooses the dialogue option that says so.

But in DA2, Hawke will insult people or ask questions or answer questions without the player having told him to do so.  Shepard does the same thing in the ME games.  The player selects a paraphrase, and then the PC does something that may or may not have any apparent connection to that paraphrase, depending on the player's interpretation of the context.

That's the difference.  That's the problem we can potentially fix.

You're asking for freedom.  I'm asking for control.

BioWare has previously given us control.  They have not previously given us freedom.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 mars 2012 - 08:18 .

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Except that I'm pretty sure that Sylvius wants to be allowed to not fight the blight.

If I know anything about him (and that's not much), he'd answer something along the lines of "it's irrelevant what I want".

I am not sure if it's a compliment or a critique, but I imagine him as a cross between Kai Winn and an AI gone awry.

[Morroian]

Eivea wrote...

"ten years ago you thought the future of RPGs would be all the detail and depth of the RPGs of the day but instead of text you could actually see everything happening and the genre would reach amazing levels of depth and immersion"

Dragon Age: Origins showed us the potencial of the above, but then DA2 took a turn towards the cinematic action direction.

They have been going in that direction since Kotor, DAO had a lot of cinematics so much so that one of my problems with the game is that the cinematics emphasise the muteness of the warden.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Except that I'm pretty sure that Sylvius wants to be allowed to not fight the blight.

I want to be able to make the choice to fight the Blight even with fighting the Blight is mandatory.

If touring through BioWare's story is all we get, I insist that I need to be the one driving the bus.