942 réponses à ce sujet

[Dejajeva]

Um, another dumb question. What is crpg. Rather, what does the c stand for? I can't help but think you guys over think this. Why don't you just play games you enjoy and if you play it and don't enjoy it, try something else? I get that you want to relive the glory days of your gaming experiences, but if Bioware no longer makes the classic type of game you enjoy, surely someone else does? But isn't really the point of games to have fun?

[Maria Caliban]

cRPG = Computer Role-Playing Game.

As opposed to PnP, pen and paper.

Dejajeva wrote...

...if Bioware no longer makes the classic type of game you enjoy, surely someone else does?

Unfortunately, no. When was the last time you saw a tactical, party-based RPG with customizable protagonist, text dialogue, branching paths of C+C, and an isometric camera?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[Dejajeva]

Thank you. Its been bugging me for days. Hated to ask and be made an example of as a worthless console player who doesn't know anything!

[Yrkoon]

Dejajeva wrote...
 I can't help but think you guys over think this. Why don't you just play games you enjoy and if you play it and don't enjoy it, try something else? I get that you want to relive the glory days of your gaming experiences, but if Bioware no longer makes the classic type of game you enjoy, surely someone else does? 

No, it's not that.  I personally rank DA:O as a better game overall than any of the 'old school' games  Bioware's  done  (BG1, Bg2, NWN etc).  But that doesn't   mean  that newer =  always better.   Or that Older = always better.  It's hit and miss, always.     And the bottom line is that  Some of us  can spot shoddy, lazy, corner cutting in game design when it stares us in the face.  Regardless of genre or date of release.  Hard to have fun when the game is boring and  oozes mediocrity from every pore.  (DA2)

  You may argue that we're "overthinking" stuff and that we should just play what's fun.  Well, that's the problem.  Some games just  aren't fun for me.  I don't find turbo-charged, action-first games  Fun at all.   . And  what makes things even worse is when  these games have the same product label as the ones that I DO find fun  (Dragon Age 2, I'm looking at you),   How exactly are we supposed to know whether or not its going to be fun before we buy it, play it, then get burned?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 avril 2012 - 06:50 .

[Dejajeva]

Well, isn't that just how life is sometimes? Its kind of like dating. You meet a good looking man, single, sensible, well behaved with good hygeine and a job and turns out he hides bodies in his basement or his hair smells funny.

[Yrkoon]

Dejajeva wrote...

Well, isn't that just how life is sometimes? Its kind of like dating. You meet a good looking man, single, sensible, well behaved with good hygeine and a job and turns out he hides bodies in his basement or his hair smells funny.

Indeed. So to use your analogy, I dated DA:O. And had 2 whole years of bliss. Then I decided to date its sister, and discovered that her name is Helga. She weighs 400 lbs, has body odor, the intelligence of a 10 year old, and the personality of  a bi-polar schitzo who hasn't taken her meds..

My message to the Bioware Dating service:  Please don't give me another Helga.  Instead,  Find me another woman like DA:O. kthxbye.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 avril 2012 - 06:59 .

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Unfortunately, no. When was the last time you saw a tactical, party-based RPG with customizable protagonist, text dialogue, branching paths of C+C, and an isometric camera?

Closest I saw was Drakensang : The River of Time.
Now my hopes are in Brian Fargo's Wasteland 2 Kickstarter.

UpsettingShorts said...
"The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity."

This is an agreeable notion. The Dark Ritual/Final Sacrifice dichotomy - and the very different world situations that arise from it - should be indicative enough of the problems inherent with this policy. At some point, you need to do a complete clean slate and begin from zero again just to make the process sustainable. Otherwise, the game's so bogged down by import flags that the resources destined to satisfy them all simply consume everything elsa. Such as the game.

UpsettingShorts said...
I understand players value the content of the line.  Xewaka has a great example he likes to use, from Mass Effect 2 when confronting the Vimire Survivor.  If you feel it is important to - such as in this example - withhold certain information from another character like avoiding the Cerberus question, paraphrases (and thus the voiced protagonist) make this impossible by obfuscating exactly what the line contents is.  Therefore, if precise control over the dialogue uttered by the PC is important to your roleplaying, a paraphrased, voiced protagonist is inherently limiting.

This is true. The main point of contention in this issue is that, while you consider this a punctual example and a case of bad execution, I consider it a shortcoming intrinsic and inseparable from all paraphrasing. You know most people dissing the VA wouldn't feel so strongly about the issue if it wasn't coupled with a choice mechanism that feels like designed to lie to the player. Consider Deus Ex Human Revolution: it had a voiced protagonist, yet I had no problem playing as Jensen. The same cannot be said of Shepard. Of course, you found Jensen more intolerable because of the full line then thrown back at you, due to subvocalization issues.
But we two have been over the issue time and time again, and since Mike Laidlaw has stated he has subvocalization issues as you have, I think we know who's going to be better served in the future. I've to wonder if no one in the team ever raised the issue about the paraphrasing clarity, when it has elicited such a heated response among a section of the fanbase; but it's their call to make.

Modifié par Xewaka, 01 avril 2012 - 09:22 .

[Bleachrude]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

Why does real choice and consequences impossible to do?  Maybe it's something about video game resources I'm not getting, but story wise, I can sit down with a big piece of paper and map out a story including all choice variables.  So story wise isn't the problem.  Then what is...?

"The unsustainable combination of branching endgame-defining choice and supporting savegame-based continuity."

Because what the forums define as "real choice" basically means "plot flag setting" and if you leave major plot choices up to the player you must then support them both in the savegame-imported sequel.  

But since everyone didn't make the same decision, that's gonna create issues of zots.  

DA2 broadly gets around this by moving the setting to Kirkwall.  The Witcher 2 gets around this by putting its big decision early in the game, changing the middle, preserving the end (afaik, I haven't played much of it).  That's why I was careful to say "endgame defining."  

I'm not even sure the Witcher 2 can be used as an example.

Frankly, the choice in Witcher 2 that determines the second act, does NOT have as big an effect on the setting as would say either the Rannoch or Tuchanka mission resolutions would...

Seriously, how the hell as a writer do you incorporate the various permutations of the resolution of the genophage plotline into a new game?

It just can't be done I think

[Xewaka]

Bleachrude wrote...
Seriously, how the hell as a writer do you incorporate the various permutations of the resolution of the genophage plotline into a new game?
It just can't be done I think

Hence the kind of ending we got for ME 3. Without going into spoilers, it was the only way something similar to the setting could go forward: establishing a clean slate after the fact. It could've been managed in a more graceful way, but something like that needed to be done.

Modifié par Xewaka, 01 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[Maria Caliban]

Actually, the choice in the Witcher 2 has almost the same amount of effect on the setting. In both cases, you're helping a splinter group regain power. A free Upper Aedern where humans and non-humans live in harmony is comparable to a Krogan population without the genophage. Ieorveth and his squirrels aren't that different from Wrex and the Krogan clans.

Likewise, destroying the Council and Conclave in the Witcher is just as big a deal as destroying the quarians.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 avril 2012 - 09:07 .

[Bleachrude]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Actually, the choice in the Witcher 2 has almost the same amount of effect on the setting. In both cases, you're helping a splinter group regain power. A free Upper Aedern where humans and non-humans live in harmony is comparable to a Krogan population without the genophage. Ieorveth and his squirrels aren't that different from Wrex and the Krogan clans.

Likewise, destroying the Council and Conclave in the Witcher is just as big a deal as destroying the quarians.

Have to disagree quite strongly with that...Those choices were more akin to choosing if Alistair was ruler or Anora was...Had a big effect on your personal story, slightly smaller effect on the story of Ferelden, smaller effect on Orlais but pretty much didn't touch the Anderfels and Thedas itself would go along without noticing it.

Genophage with Wreav alone versus Genophage with Wrex and Eve?

Yeah that's kind of a big difference in how any future ME storyline would play out...

Now, you could base an entire game off of the above bit trying to incporate both? Not likely..

Same thing with the quarians...A galactic society that has to deal with quarians with geth running in their suits would have a muich different narrative than a galactic society 

This is akin to Luke deciding to take up the emperor on his offer near the end of RotJ

[AkiKishi]

Dejajeva wrote...

Um, another dumb question. What is crpg. Rather, what does the c stand for? I can't help but think you guys over think this. Why don't you just play games you enjoy and if you play it and don't enjoy it, try something else? I get that you want to relive the glory days of your gaming experiences, but if Bioware no longer makes the classic type of game you enjoy, surely someone else does? But isn't really the point of games to have fun?

CRPG - Computer Roleplaying Game
JRPG - Japanese Roleplaying Game.

Labels, rightly or wrongly bring expectations, even though the definition is somewhat nebulous.

[AbounI]

Maria Caliban wrote...


Unfortunately, no. When was the last time you saw a tactical, party-based RPG with customizable protagonist, text dialogue, branching paths of C+C, and an isometric camera?

I just to suggest you to take a look at the Iron Tower forum and check out the "golden" Age Of Decadence, as the beta demo arrived last week.
Just a story driven RPG, with branching paths, an isometric camero, customizable character, and a tru concept of choices/consequence.Ah, and you will note that the game is not specially focused upon fightings, it's one on the most social path I've neva played.Fightings are tactical with a turn by turn approach.
Unfortunatly, no party based.
But I admit you could have easily miss this game, as Vince is quite a man who "**** the larger public":whistle:

[Maria Caliban]

Bleachrude wrote...

Have to disagree quite strongly with that...Those choices were more akin to choosing if Alistair was ruler or Anora was...Had a big effect on your personal story, slightly smaller effect on the story of Ferelden, smaller effect on Orlais but pretty much didn't touch the Anderfels and Thedas itself would go along without noticing it.

Genophage with Wreav alone versus Genophage with Wrex and Eve?

Yeah that's kind of a big difference in how any future ME storyline would play out...

Now, you could base an entire game off of the above bit trying to incporate both? Not likely..

Same thing with the quarians...A galactic society that has to deal with quarians with geth running in their suits would have a muich different narrative than a galactic society 

This is akin to Luke deciding to take up the emperor on his offer near the end of RotJ

You're making the mistake of thinking of these as real places with real people. The Witcher game is not smaller than the Mass Effect game, even if one is concerned with local kingdoms and the other uses the entire galaxy as its stage.

Meeting Ierveth and having him tell you how the Pontar Valley is stable and he's settled down with a wife is just as easy as meeting Wrex and having him tell you how Tuchanka is stable and everyone is busy making little krogan.

Even if you headed to Tuchanka and could see it either filled with krogan or with only a handful, that's no different from heading to Vergan and seeing it independent or under control of the Unicorn. BioWare won't show you all of Tuchanka, after all, but a small area that about as big as Vergan.

AbounI wrote...

I just to suggest you to take a look at the Iron Tower forum and check out the "golden" Age Of Decadence, as the beta demo arrived last week.

Yes, I know about Age of Decadence. Thanks.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 avril 2012 - 10:45 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But this sort of cinematic flair runs directly contrary to first-person roleplaying concerns.

There, you answered your dilemma yourself. BioWare doesn't care that their techniques run contrary to first-person roleplaying concerns in this (and other) instance. Simple as that.

Again, I can't understand why any game designer ever thought it was a good idea.

See above.

[Bleachrude]

Maria Caliban wrote...


You're making the mistake of thinking of these as real places with real people. The Witcher game is not smaller than the Mass Effect game, even if one is concerned with local kingdoms and the other uses the entire galaxy as its stage.

Meeting Ierveth and having him tell you how the Pontar Valley is stable and he's settled down with a wife is just as easy as meeting Wrex and having him tell you how Tuchanka is stable and everyone is busy making little krogan.

Even if you headed to Tuchanka and could see it either filled with krogan or with only a handful, that's no different from heading to Vergan and seeing it independent or under control of the Unicorn. BioWare won't show you all of Tuchanka, after all, but a small area that about as big as Vergan.

And this is where I disagree...

An ending with Wreav in charge and no Eve with genophage cure is pretty much stated that the krogan will be breeding a new horde (what was it EDI said about Krogan fertility?).

I would expect galactic society to be preparing for a new war given that the last time it DID lead to the Krogan rebellions when a dick like Wreav was in charge...I would expect krogans to be even more  common than say the turians model seemed to be as well all over the place...

Contrast this with a sabotaged Krogans with only Eve alive and you would/should see less krogans about.

As well, what you are assuming is that Wrex and Wreave are basically palette swaps but Bioware did do a very goob job in highlighting how those too would act differently if the genophage was cured.

[upsettingshorts]

(Mostly off-topic)

Wreav and Wrex are not immortal, and the mathematics of curing the genophage will create circumstances for the Krogan that will make expansion mandatory.  With an unmodified birthrate, Krogan will take over the galaxy. Wreav would just attempt to do it more quickly. Wrex's patience would, in the long run, likely make them even more dangerous.  

The Mass Effect writers like pulling this trick on us where the genophage is presented in a wildly different light depending on whether or not we're supposed to think it's a good and necessary idea (Mordin in ME2) or an awful curse that leaves mothers in a constant state of miscarriage.  But the facts remain, Krogan birth cluthes of over a thousand.  With the genophage the vast majority of these die, and some Krogan remain infertile.  Without the genophage, most if not all of them live - each for a thousand years of their own.  There will quickly be Krogan everywhere, and they will need places to live and food to eat.  That's before we even consider how violent they may or may not be.  

The genophage was meant to replace the originally hostile environment of Tuchanka which kept the Krogan birthrate down, having been elevated by the other species and their planet terraformed into at least base acceptability, there is nothing stopping them from breeding out of control besides the genophage.

But Maria is pointing out that you're talking about scale, and that's not really fair considering Mass Effect and The Witcher encompass wildly different perspectives. Of course The Witcher doesn't allow you to make superepichugemassive decisions, you're not Galactic Hero Commander Shepard. The reason TW2 was raised in comparison was where it successfully placed its major choices in the narrative (early) versus where Dragon Age and Mass Effect are running into issues putting theirs (the end).

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[Lilacs]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

For the sake of the series lasting past 3 games one would hope. I will say, if it ends up being another DA II won't be buying new.

I won't bother with it period.  

However, I know Bioware does listen.  Look at the DLC's for DA II.  It proves to me that Bioware is actually taking our constructive criticisms to heart.  I am optimistic that DA III will improve greatly, for Bioware is taking notes to our likes and dislikes.  I hope Bioware incorporates what worked in DA II and in DA II DLC's into DA III.


I always keep an open mind. :-)

Modifié par Lilacs, 01 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[Lilacs]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd be interested in knowing what the specific mental mechanism is that differentiates playing a character from directing a character.

The important difference, I think, is between directing a character and not directing a character.  It's when the character acts without my input that is the problem.

Without formal definitions, I'm not convinced the playing/directing distinction even exists.  But the playing/not-playing distinction exists.  And the directing/not-directing distinction exists.

Those are the distinctions that matter.

It seems to me that some of the people here are after a specific level of control all the time and can only feel as though they're RPing when certain elements are present. From my perspective, these elements are arbitrary. Nothing a cRPG offers (outside of certain MUDs) is comparable to the control I have over my PC in a PnP game.

Now you're conflating freedom and control.  It's the same mistake the_one was making earlier in the thread.

Control involves the player being the one telling the character what the do.  Freedom refers to the range of possible actions.

CRPGs obviously offer limited freedom.  Even tabletop games limit usually freedom to some extent (though not as much).  But CRPGs need not offer any less control than tabletop games, and have traditionally offered vastly more control than DA2 does.

Paraphrases, for example, mean that I don't know what my PC is going to say until after they say it. But that's fine. I have no problem integrating new information into my concept of character.

I find there's simply too much information to be recompiled.  Every single decision you've made since you entered character creation needs to be checked against this new characte concept.  How do you do that?

Moreover, doing that requires I extract myself from my character and re-evaluate him.  While I'm doing that, I'm missing NPC reactions to my line.  Not only do I not yet have the information I need to determine how my PC would interpret those reactions, but any attempt gather than information causes me to miss the reaction anyway.

This problem would be reduced by the ability to pause cinematics (including cinematic conversations), but it's still a gigantic barrier to enjoyment.

Are there times when what my PC says conflicts too much with my concept of character? Yes. I either reload to pick a different answer or I continue on and ignore the aspects I disagree with.

Certainly you can do that, but I find it happens with a majority of dialogue events in DA2.  More often than not, finding the right dialogue option requires at least one reload, and that can mean 6-8 reloads per conversation.

That's beyond irritating.  DA3 needs to do a much better job at letting the player know what the paraphrase will be.

Kudos, Sylvius.  This is truly a wonderful post!  Analytical or logical as always.  I agree with your ideas (and your analytical views) wholeheartedly.    :-)

Modifié par Lilacs, 01 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I find there's simply too much information to be recompiled.  Every single decision you've made since you entered character creation needs to be checked against this new character concept.  How do you do that?

I think it's as simple as following the roleplaying vs. rolechoosing distinction to it's logical conclusion.

If you're roleplaying a character - as you do - then you're right.  
If you're "rolechoosing" a character - as I do - then your character concept wasn't so precise as to be broken by a somewhat unexpected decision in the first place.  

In the former, a thoroughly constructed character must act according to their design or be broken.  You've explained the difficulties games like DA2 present to this approach at length, so I don't need to summarize.
In the latter, a vague character concept is made more complete by the actions they take in the game.  As such, my characters aren't truly finished until the end of the game, part of the process is discovery.

Of course, if we pursue that distinction further we'll end up at the "what is a cRPG" argument, where you argue it's a replacement for PNP without other players, and I argue it's a choose-your-adventure book.  So - and for anyone new this is not the first time I've said this - I don't actually think cRPGs are RPGs in the traditional sense. Other people will chime in saying they agree with one approach or the other, and we'll get nowhere.  

So moving on:

The purpose of the distinction is to attempt to explain why, in the choose-your-adventure book approach, player character concepts are more elastic and responsive to on-the-fly change.  Players who take this approach either don't feel as if the game gives them the finite control roleplaying would demand in the first place and/or enjoy the narrative enough that they do not mind relinquishing some level of control to the writers.  Of course, ultimately there's going to be differences in how each individual plays, so I'm painting with broad strokes here.  Not everyone who loves meticulous roleplaying is as dedicated as Sylvius, and not everyone who thinks cRPGs are choose-your-adventure books is as comfortable with hands-off moments as I am.  

For what it's worth, I think I reloaded due to dialogue choice issues a couple of times in Dragon Age 2.  Once being the opening of Act 3 where I wanted to make sure I didn't choose a side in the Meredith/Orsino confrontation, but accidentally did.  Pretty sure the other time was just because I wanted to see a romance I didn't plan on pursuing.  Don't remember any others.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 02:18 .

[Aly666]

Realmzmaster wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aly666 wrote...

i think the only thing you should learn from skyrim is the big world that it is and make dragon 3 map very big.... btw does anyone know where dragon age 3 will take place. I loved origins map very unique and i love the city very big and pretty. Stop wasting time looking at all these new rpg games if anything learn from classics. The only way you can mess up dragon age 3 is if your thinking in your head we have to accommodate the newbies and beginners.... No you don't they pick up where they left off bye a comic or goto wiki and learn what has happened. I wanna play a game that contains more of the story containing what happened in the past and new problem, character customization endless, weapons many , but most of all keep the story rich

This is actually a bad thing for Bioware. Large maps remove you from the story for long periods of time. Characters run out of things to say and go into "calibration" mode.

Large areas and rich stories are like the polar opposites of each other.

I agree with BobSmith101. Skyrim is essentially a single PC game. You can have companions but they are basically meat shields that contribute very little to the experience. The PC has no real conversations with them. For example in DOA one of the criticisms is that you could run a companion's conversation dialog out before you got half way through the game. 
Look at the story that comes with Skyrim. If you did only the story the game might be 30-40 hours long.  The appeal of Skyrim is the ability to explore the world, engage in other activities, do the sidequests, come back  and pick up the main story when you want.

That would not work well in a story driven crpg.

sorry i was not clear enough but dragon age 2 map is complete **** compared to origins map i want the map like origins. There's so much more then dragon age 2 because its not super reoccuring. So when i say like skyrim i dont actually mean like skyrim i mean make like origins map but bigger. Obviously i want more not less 

[cJohnOne]

Aly666 wrote...

sorry i was not clear enough but dragon age 2 map is complete **** compared to origins map i want the map like origins. There's so much more then dragon age 2 because its not super reoccuring. So when i say like skyrim i dont actually mean like skyrim i mean make like origins map but bigger. Obviously i want more not less 

Ha, Ha.  You think it should be bigger than Origins?  Origins was a big game.  I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect a longer game than Origins.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 01 avril 2012 - 02:45 .

[Bleachrude]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

(Mostly off-topic)

Wreav and Wrex are not immortal, and the mathematics of curing the genophage will create circumstances for the Krogan that will make expansion mandatory.  With an unmodified birthrate, Krogan will take over the galaxy. Wreav would just attempt to do it more quickly. Wrex's patience would, in the long run, likely make them even more dangerous.  

The Mass Effect writers like pulling this trick on us where the genophage is presented in a wildly different light depending on whether or not we're supposed to think it's a good and necessary idea (Mordin in ME2) or an awful curse that leaves mothers in a constant state of miscarriage.  But the facts remain, Krogan birth cluthes of over a thousand.  With the genophage the vast majority of these die, and some Krogan remain infertile.  Without the genophage, most if not all of them live - each for a thousand years of their own.  There will quickly be Krogan everywhere, and they will need places to live and food to eat.  That's before we even consider how violent they may or may not be.  

The genophage was meant to replace the originally hostile environment of Tuchanka which kept the Krogan birthrate down, having been elevated by the other species and their planet terraformed into at least base acceptability, there is nothing stopping them from breeding out of control besides the genophage.

But Maria is pointing out that you're talking about scale, and that's not really fair considering Mass Effect and The Witcher encompass wildly different perspectives. Of course The Witcher doesn't allow you to make superepichugemassive decisions, you're not Galactic Hero Commander Shepard. The reason TW2 was raised in comparison was where it successfully placed its major choices in the narrative (early) versus where Dragon Age and Mass Effect are running into issues putting theirs (the end).

Offtopic: The thing with Wrex and Eve is that I would hope that Eve would be able to control just how many children they have at one time...With Wreav, he's not planning for this...

On-tpic: I think it depends on just how "big" the reprecussions actually are. I don't see say the effect of the genophage having as little effect on the game world as say choosing Anora or alistair for ruler would have...

Take the choice of Ozammar's ruler. In the context of the the game itself, you could do Ozammar first (good luck there) yet the effect won't have that much of an effect on the rest of the game...

This is mainly IMO because Ozammar itself has little effect on Ferelden itself with regard to how it shapes Ferelden...Similarly, the VS has little effect on the game itself in the Mass Effect series.

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Of course The Witcher doesn't allow you to make superepichugemassive decisions, you're not Galactic Hero Commander Shepard. The reason TW2 was raised in comparison was where it successfully placed its major choices in the narrative (early) versus where Dragon Age and Mass Effect are running into issues putting theirs (the end).

Again, thats not entirely true. Sure, you're experiencing unique content based on your choices in Act 2, but TW2 still lets you make potentially big, nation defining choices in Act 3. Some of which could create major differences to the world at large in subsequent games, if they're still focused in the Northern Kingdoms and even if they're not potentially.

Considering Casey Hudson mentioned he has no plans on doing any future ME games beyond the timeframe of the events of ME3, they don't have to deal with any of the events/choices you made in ME3.