942 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

axl99 wrote...

Yes it is. You're asking them to do the same thing they did a few years ago.

THE.
EXACT.
SAME.
WAY.

Which is no better than casual gaming companies crapping out 6-9 games for 35-60 year olds to consume on a monthly basis.

It's much better. I don't want them to do it with 10 hours of gameplay. I want 70 hours of gameplay. Also, I am not objecting to the idea of improvements. Only insisting that some characteristics of the older games were right the first time around.

[axl99]

And what makes you any more qualified than I am, Dragoonlordz?

You're just a consumer with a sense of entitlement.

Modifié par axl99, 27 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[Zzulu2]

I thought DA:O was an incredibly mediocre game and I don't think I will ever understand why it garners so many devout fans. 

DA2 was also a misfire in other ways but I certainly hope they don't go back to the format of DA:O because it was just not a particularly interesting game.

[Maria Caliban]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

axl99 wrote...

And as a side note, Witcher 2 has some of the most broken game and story mechanics I've seen for a AAA title despite the sheer breadth of content it has. Don't ever use CDProjeckt as excuse to bash Bioware just because they had a longer production time to polish their game [visually anyway, which is all they can really do, and even then their characters look lifeless].

I do not think you even played it based on your response.

The Witcher 2? I started a new game this weekend and finished the Kayran fight last night. She's totally right about the broken game mechanics. Even with the patches they've put out to fix the combat, it's a complete twitch fest.

[Dragoonlordz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

axl99 wrote...

And as a side note, Witcher 2 has some of the most broken game and story mechanics I've seen for a AAA title despite the sheer breadth of content it has. Don't ever use CDProjeckt as excuse to bash Bioware just because they had a longer production time to polish their game [visually anyway, which is all they can really do, and even then their characters look lifeless].

I do not think you even played it based on your response. Either way my point remains and you did not counter the very element I talked about. I was not bashing Bioware by mentioniing Witcher 2, do not get so defensive just because you did not enjoy a game that a truly immense amount of people did. Both Skyrim and Witcher 2 had elements that could improve a Bioware product, dismissing it out of hand the way you did does not add credability to your own stance. Adding elements that can improve another title while at same time keeping what made that title great is not a negative thing.

The way to improve a product is not to stick your nose up at everyone else out of arrogance and many games have things that can improve your own products. The one part we agree on is what they create should be up to them but they should not dismiss out ofhand all things anyone else says without thinking about if something they might like to do. They do not have to agree but it is nice they listened. I for one do not wish for another BG even though I loved DA:O, I also liked ME3 and did not enjoy DA2.

The Witcher 2? I started a new game this weekend and finished the Kayran fight last night. She's totally right about the broken game mechanics. Even with the patches they've put out to fix the combat, it's a complete twitch fest.

It did not address the very element I was talking about which was not combat mechanics. Also please use exact qoutes so I do not get misrepresented. As such I have included the rest which you cut.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 01:11 .

[upsettingshorts]

The Witcher 2's combat is a simpler, less fun version of Jade Empire's with a steeper learning curve.

[axl99]

And badly implemented hitboxes where enemies can still hit you from behind even if you're rolling [like an old man] several meters away, or weakly raising your arms to block an incoming attack. Which totally goes against the Witcher mythos of mutant monsterslayers with enhanced physical and magical abilities.

Immersion? Instantly broken. Like the game.

Modifié par axl99, 27 mars 2012 - 01:12 .

[mesmerizedish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Witcher 2's combat is a simpler, less fun version of Jade Empire's with a steeper learning curve.

I thought it was a simpler, less fun version of Batman: Arkham Asylum's with a steeper learning curve.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The Witcher 2's combat is a simpler, less fun version of Jade Empire's with a steeper learning curve.

Action combat == action combat.

Other characteristics of the game(s) are unrelated.

It's more than simple to illustrate this concept with a tautology.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 01:15 .

[upsettingshorts]

Well, I've played Jade Empire but not B:AA. We all have our frames of reference.

[Dragoonlordz]

axl99 wrote...

And badly implemented hitboxes where enemies can still hit you from behind even if you're rolling [like an old man] several meters away, or weakly raising your arms to block an incoming attack. Which totally goes against the Witcher mythos of mutant monsterslayers with enhanced physical and magical abilities.

Immersion? Instantly broken. Like the game.

One gameplay element does not make or break a game. You keep sidetracking the very issue and element I was talking about or talked about. Your going off topic by talking about combat instead of living world vs immersion I brought up. Combat was also not what I mentioned taking inspiration from. If wish to bicker or argue with me at least have the courtesy to talk about what I mentioned not running off on a tangent in another direction.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 01:21 .

[axl99]

B:AA and B:AC could do without the slowmo. It's annoyingly useless even for purely aesthetic purposes. Ironic considering you can cancel out of combat animations.

Which the Witcher 2 can't do.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The Witcher 2's combat is a simpler, less fun version of Jade Empire's with a steeper learning curve.

Action combat == action combat.

Other characteristics of the game(s) are unrelated.

It's more than simply to illustrate this concept with a tautology.

Yeahhhhh my comparison could go into far more detail than that.  If I cared to explain.  I do not.  It is sufficiently self-evident to me that I see no need to elaborate, especially since talking about two games that aren't Dragon Age in a thread about Dragon Age is offtopic.

Play both games side by side and tell me how the gameplay is significantly different and I'll assume you're a crazy blind man before I buy it.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Play both games side by side and tell me how the gameplay is significantly different and I'll assume you're a crazy blind man before I buy it.

Hence; action combat == action combat. It bears no fruit to argue with people that will readily deny a tautological truth.

[upsettingshorts]

My position inherently disputes your premise.

[axl99]

Truth. HAH!

[Plaintiff]

Who's "we"? You got  mouse in your pocket?

Speak for your own damn self. I do want an expansion to DA2 and I most definitely do not want a return to Origins formula, or a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate".

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

axl99 wrote...

And badly implemented hitboxes where enemies can still hit you from behind even if you're rolling [like an old man] several meters away, or weakly raising your arms to block an incoming attack. Which totally goes against the Witcher mythos of mutant monsterslayers with enhanced physical and magical abilities.

Immersion? Instantly broken. Like the game.

One gameplay element does not make or break a game. You keep sidetracking the very issue and element I was talking about or talked about. Your going off topic by talking about combat instead of living world vs immersion I brought up. Combat was also not what I mentioned taking inspiration from. If wish to bicker or argue with me at least have the courtesy to talk about that I mentioned not running off on a tangent in another direction.

This ^^  While I'm not the biggest fan of The Witcher's combat either, the world is indeed immersive and the game offers a ton of choice that actually impacts the world around you. Also the world it's set in feels alive, while still telling a cohesive story. You can have a strong story and have a living breathing world, the two aren't mutually exclusive from each other.

Using  the "Well Bioware wants to tell a story" excuse is just that. And Dragon Age II's disjointed mess of a framed narative is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of strong story elements in the first place.

I can't comment on Skyrim's narrative as I still have yet to finish it, keep getting distracted by the vast amount of content that particular title has.

[SteveGarbage]

Ha, I lauighed at the title of the thread. Because in any suggestion thread you're pretty much guaranteed to see someone say: "I want X" and another person say "I want the exact opposite of X."

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Once games crossed the line of only giving you a description about your surroundings and letting you input a description of your actions, the autonomy of the player was decreased. It may have been only some fraction of a percent. But in some way or form, the maker of the game made some kind of decision about your character for you that you would have wanted to make on your own. Because once games started trying to do more than just give you a storyteller description of your surroundings, the limitations of coding and narrative diversity took something away from the player's ability to create and direct a character.

Ahh, I see your mistake.

We were talking about the autonomy of the player character, not the autonomy of the player.  I was arguing that the maximum acceptable autonomy of the player character is zero.  You are responding as if I was calling for a maximum of zero loss of player freedom.

I was not.

Don't care. They already made games that I loved. They can go back to doing that or just count me out. It's not such a huge or hard demand. They did it a few years ago.

This is important.  We mostly don't ask for things that they haven't already done in previous games.

[Realmzmaster]

First of all the title of the post should say I not we. No one person can speak for the collective we unless he/she has been voted in or assign that particular task as spokesperson for a group. Also as SteveGarbage states what one gamer wants is not necessarily what another gamer wants.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My position inherently disputes your premise.

The_one has an even lower tolerance for action combat than I do.  As far as he's concerned, any instance of action combat immediately disqualifies a game from any further consideration.

[Maria Caliban]

I'm going to defend the thread title: As long as one other person agrees with that the OP says, 'we' is correct. It doesn't mean everyone, just more than one.

Though yes, it's often co-opted to mean 'all right minded people.'

[Blastback]

Count me in the "I want the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" camp.

Of course, even if everyone could agree on that, we'd spend forever agruing over just what it means..

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm going to defend the thread title: As long as one other person agrees with that the OP says, 'we' is correct. It doesn't mean everyone, just more than one.

I knew i liked you for a reason.