150 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

<snip>

I hear that the number one reason to playthrough again is not differing plot branches or ending possibilities, but the ability to have different interactions with the companions

For what it's worth, my main reasons for replaying DA2 were:

1. See what happens with different imports : different subquests, different NPCs' fate (e.g. Alistair) etc... (So, yeah, it was more a continuation of replaying DAO)

2. Experiment with different Hawkes, in terms of "mindsets" and decisions. Pro-templar, pro-mage, dirty rogue, grumpy mage etc... Companions and romances were only a part of this.

All this replaying was done despite a lot of things, but I still had fun, and that's what counts. 

<snip>

In short, I think DA2 fans and DA:O fans CAN like the same DA3 game

DA2 fans and DAO fans CAN also be the same persons. It goes with degrees - one can prefer one over the other - but liking one doesn't automatically mean disliking the other.

Otherwise, pretty much agreeing with you, especially this:

Oh, and an ending. Please, for the love of all that is holy Bioware... don't skimp on the ending ever again. Its becoming your Achilles heel.

IMHO, an ending doesn't make a game; the journey to that ending does. But it's still goddamn important. I don't consider DA2's (or Awakening, or Witch Hunt) "exit, stage left" as a satisfying one.

[Uccio]

^ I did enjoy DA2 to a point, but, do I want next game to be like DA2? No I don´t. More like Origins? Yes I do. If we get really lucky Bio will throw in some BG experience too.

Modifié par Ukki, 21 avril 2012 - 06:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The combat is fundamentally different, though.

In DAO, the player can control all of the party members simultaneously.

No, you can also do this in KoTOR.

In KotOR (and this is top of my mind right nw because I'm playing NWN2, which does the same thing) only one character can be controlled at a time, with the other characters abandoning any previously given instructions as soon as a different character is selected.

Not the way I play. It's pause/ability/unpause/switch/ability, so if we're talking how the game plays as our definitive characteristics, DA:O and KoTOR can be played the same.

It is not possible in KotOR to have your party members stand still when you're not in control of them.  If there are mines I want to disarm, and enemies beyond those mines, taking control of one charcter to disarm the mines leaves the other party members free to ruch ahead, triggering the mines, to attack the enemies.

Instructions given in KotOR do not persist once focus has been taken away from that character.

DAO would have this same problem if it hadn't allowed more than one character to be the active character at the same time.

DA2 works like DAO, but it's harder to use because of the limited camera movement.

KotOR plays more like Mass Effect or NWN - single character games - than it does like BG or DAO.

Even if that's true, everything else in KoTOR parallels the DA:O much closer than BG.

Plot structure, world design, travel - yes, I'll agree with that.

BG was better than both DAO and KotOR in that regard.  I do think DA2's overall plot structure resembles BG's more than any other BioWare game since (including BG2).

[Sylvius the Mad]

hhh89 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Does anyone know if Bioware had designed a game for consoles before ME1?  If not then that could be why it feels more like a PC game to me.

Jade Empire. It was released first on the original Xbox. As ME was released first on Xbox 360.

KotOR, as well.  It was released first for the XBox.  Much of the UI design screamed console.

[termokanden]

PurebredCorn wrote...

People replay different games for different reasons. I replayed DA2 many times. Recycled areas, as Maria pointed out, are annoying to most people whether it's their first or fifth time through the game.

So nobody thinks recycled environments in any way make repeated playthroughs any less enjoyable? Huh. Well, I guess weirder things have happened.

Oh wait, I do. So there's one person.

[bEVEsthda]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Radical changes to contents under market labels don't work out, unless the label is pretty much completely dead. And then it's a case of resurrection. Radical changes to what a company is doing, is a completely different matter.

But what are you defining as a label?

Dragon Age? Both that and Mass Effect are already Transmedia labels, and I don't think they created either world thinking that it was meant to be a RPG first and foremost?

It doesn't matter what they meant. They still have to be careful the marketing is done right.

For sure they could and can use the Dragon Age franchise for whatever. They could make a Facebook game for instance. They could make some console action game like GoW. They could licence it to whatever. Like novels, comics, animated movies...
Nothing stopping them from that. As long as it's clear it's something different.

But they already did one thing with DA. They released a Bioware party WRPG, called DA:Origin. Then they called another game DA 2. Two. What is it you don't understand?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 avril 2012 - 10:27 .

[Yrkoon]

termokanden wrote...

PurebredCorn wrote...

People replay different games for different reasons. I replayed DA2 many times. Recycled areas, as Maria pointed out, are annoying to most people whether it's their first or fifth time through the game.

So nobody thinks recycled environments in any way make repeated playthroughs any less enjoyable? Huh. Well, I guess weirder things have happened.

Oh wait, I do. So there's one person.

Add me to the list.  Now you have 2

Although I do feel it's important to point out that  DA2's   shameless reused maps are  one in a long list of reasons why  Replaying DA2 is akin to walking into an  interrogation room and begging  the interrogator   there to  torture you... for 50 hours.


Recycled environments are one of those elements, like lack of character customization,  or  teeny-tiny, clusterphobic game worlds, that simply  go counter to what makes me want to replay any game.

And while a couple of posters here are quick to remind us that some  people have replayed DA2 multiple times inspite of the recycled environments, I can show you quite a few more that can testify that these recycled environments made them QUIT playing DA2 from sheer  boredom  about half way into  their only playthru

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 avril 2012 - 10:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

termokanden wrote...

PurebredCorn wrote...

People replay different games for different reasons. I replayed DA2 many times. Recycled areas, as Maria pointed out, are annoying to most people whether it's their first or fifth time through the game.

So nobody thinks recycled environments in any way make repeated playthroughs any less enjoyable? Huh. Well, I guess weirder things have happened.

Oh wait, I do. So there's one person.

Sure, recycled area make repeated playthroughs less enjoyable. They also make the first playthrough less enjoyable.

Besides, if you frequently replay games and I rarely do, it's likely you have a higher tolerance for some types of repetition than I. If you see the same area 20 times while I only see it 10 times, it's possible that find Ithat recycled area *even more* annoying or irritating than you do.

I recall reading a Blizzard lead designer talk about Diablo III. He said, "One of the things that's key to "Diablo II" -- and I've gone through and done timing on it -- it changes environments every 15 minutes, and every 45 minutes they give you an environment that looks completely different than one you've ever seen before. And when they change environments, the contrast is huge. It's like I'm in green lush fields, and now I'm in the darkest dungeon you've ever seen. I'm in a bright sandy desert, and now I'm in a completely dim mummy tomb. There are these vast shifts in look, and it's one of the things that keeps people interested in playing the game.”

While you might not be keen on Blizzard, I’d say they understand the psychological mechanisms of the average gamer very well.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 avril 2012 - 11:00 .

[termokanden]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Besides, if you frequently replay games and I rarely do, it's likely you have a higher tolerance for some types of repetition than I. If you see the same area 20 times while I only see it 10 times, it's possible that find Ithat recycled area *even more* annoying or irritating than you do.

In a game with good replayability, there isn't much repetition. It's certainly not mindless repetition. I guess that's what separates games with high and low replayability.

To make it clear, I don't replay everything. Not even close. Very good games with high replayability however I play many times.

I recall reading a Blizzard lead designer talk about Diablo III. He said, "One of the things that's key to "Diablo II" -- and I've gone through and done timing on it -- it changes environments every 15 minutes, and every 45 minutes they give you an environment that looks completely different than one you've ever seen before. And when they change environments, the contrast is huge. It's like I'm in green lush fields, and now I'm in the darkest dungeon you've ever seen. I'm in a bright sandy desert, and now I'm in a completely dim mummy tomb. There are these vast shifts in look, and it's one of the things that keeps people interested in playing the game.”

Will be interesting to see how much of this is pure marketing BS. Some games have randomly generated areas. Technically you probably haven't seen them before, but that doesn't always make them feel new and interesting.

I also don't need to be running around in waist-high snow one second and on the moon the next. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking if they could please, please, please not use the same exact maps for all acts of the game.

I don't mind getting lost in a dungeon for hours, as long as it doesn't repeat itself.

While you might not be keen on Blizzard, I’d say they understand the psychological mechanisms of the average gamer very well.

Yeah don't even get me started on that. I know a few people who never quite did get out of their WoW addiction.

Modifié par termokanden, 22 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Transgirlgamer wrote...
I guess it's not that then.  Ah well.  I was just curious.  I don't actually have any form of Xbox so it doesn't really matter to me.  Most of my gaming these days is on my PC and when I do play a console, I use my PS3.

[/quote]

Also the original Knights of the Old Republic.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It is not possible in KotOR to have
your party members stand still when you're not in control of them.  If
there are mines I want to disarm, and enemies beyond those mines, taking
control of one charcter to disarm the mines leaves the other party
members free to ruch ahead, triggering the mines, to attack the enemies. [/quote]

That happens in DA2 too, unless you figure out how to use the hold button right.

That said, I never noticed this in KoTOR, because this is just not the sort of thing I would do (disable mines while in combat).
[quote]

[quote]BG
was better than both DAO and KotOR in that regard.  I do think DA2's
overall plot structure resembles BG's more than any other BioWare game
since (including BG2).[/quote]

I actually thought DA2 was more like BG2 than BG, especially with Act 1. But I agree with you that it was overall a lot like BG series in how much less restrained it was. Which, funny enough, led to it really being criticized.

But for some reason, RPG gamers have an obsession with form over substance.

[Maria Caliban]

What does 'form' or 'substance' mean when applied to an RPG?

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...

What does 'form' or 'substance' mean when applied to an RPG?

Basically, I think so-called RPG fans care more about how a feature is presented, i.e. how it looks (i.e. the form) rather than what it does, i.e. how it works (the substance). 

[Ghidorah14]

OP speaks the truth.

[termokanden]

In Exile wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

What does 'form' or 'substance' mean when applied to an RPG?

Basically, I think so-called RPG fans care more about how a feature is presented, i.e. how it looks (i.e. the form) rather than what it does, i.e. how it works (the substance). 

Just saying it doesn't make it true, and I certainly don't believe it. Some people, sure. But RPG fans in general, no.

But it sounds like a fine insult to me.

[Fast Jimmy]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far on this thread, it has been nice to see people have a dialogue about these things. 

That being said, I think the 'repeated environemnts' argument for DA2 has been mined to death. I think it was an issue and it hurt replay ability, sure, but the DA team has made changed to the DLC in response to the complaint, and listed it as one of their top three concerns for The Next Big Thing at PAX East, so I feel it is an issue that will be handled as a top priority - aka, there are other issues worth bringing up about how we want EA/Bioware to make games going forward. 

In Exile wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

What does 'form' or 'substance' mean when applied to an RPG?

Basically, I think so-called RPG fans care more about how a feature is presented, i.e. how it looks (i.e. the form) rather than what it does, i.e. how it works (the substance).  

 

Interestingly enough, I don't think this applies to only RPG fans, or even just video game fans, but to humans in general. 

If a new law that is created is stated that it drops crime by 35%, but our neighborhoods still seem just as unsafe, the politicians who drafted it will not be seen as successful. If a new company procedure creates a lot of extra work, but saves the company lots of money, an employee who never sees a raise or increased budget for their department for all this extra work will not support the new policy. 

Similarly, if a video game tells us how a feature or ability works in lore or by others interactions, but never SHOWS us this in game, it will not be received as a well-implemented feature. It goes back to the old 'show me, don't tell me' argument. It's always better to show how you accomplish something in game, rather than tell the player. Always. 

EDIT: Made sense of some of my actual sentences. Gah, friends don't let friends post on forums from their phones.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[In Exile]

termokanden wrote...
Just saying it doesn't make it true, and I certainly don't believe it. Some people, sure. But RPG fans in general, no.

But it sounds like a fine insult to me.

So called "RPG fans" (I'm making a distiction here, because there seems to be a clear difference on these forumsbetween people who like RPGs, and people who self-describe, re: tastes and attitudes) are terrible about this. A great example is the way the ME2 inventory system (weapons + armour) + upgrade works, numerically, in setting up a power curve as against the ME1 inventory system (and visually, in terms of how many unique items you actually have).

ME1 wasn't any more of an RPG than ME2 was in this regard - but it had an "RPG-looking" system, and suddenly that made a difference.

Edit:

Another great example are epilogue slides ostensibly turning "no choice" into "choice".

Modifié par In Exile, 22 avril 2012 - 02:02 .

[byzantine horse]

In Exile wrote...

termokanden wrote...
Just saying it doesn't make it true, and I certainly don't believe it. Some people, sure. But RPG fans in general, no.

But it sounds like a fine insult to me.

So called "RPG fans" (I'm making a distiction here, because there seems to be a clear difference on these forumsbetween people who like RPGs, and people who self-describe, re: tastes and attitudes) are terrible about this. A great example is the way the ME2 inventory system (weapons + armour) + upgrade works, numerically, in setting up a power curve as against the ME1 inventory system (and visually, in terms of how many unique items you actually have).

ME1 wasn't any more of an RPG than ME2 was in this regard - but it had an "RPG-looking" system, and suddenly that made a difference.

Edit:

Another great example are epilogue slides ostensibly turning "no choice" into "choice".

I really agree. What if ME3 had had epilogue sliders after the game? I won't say that the controversy would never have been, but it would not have been as bad. I can bet my right hand on it.

[Maria Caliban]

That's not an issue of players focusing on form instead of substance. The ending of ME 3, as is, suggests a large number of outcomes that the writers apparently did not intend. Yes, BioWare's developers ought to be able to convey their intent without epilogue slides, but in this case they failed to do so.

It's not like DA:O where letting a demon remain within Redcliff kid has an obvious outcome, and the epilogue slide is simply reinforcing what we can already guess.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

That happens in DA2 too, unless you figure out how to use the hold button right.

DA2 characters will ignore the Hold button if they get too far away from the controlled character, but they will stand still without the hold button if they are selected.  Selecting more than one character at a time is a tremendous benefit to player control in both DA games.

I actually thought DA2 was more like BG2 than BG, especially with Act 1. But I agree with you that it was overall a lot like BG series in how much less restrained it was. Which, funny enough, led to it really being criticized.

But for some reason, RPG gamers have an obsession with form over substance.

This is true of people generally.  Shallow analysis wins the day.

[the_one_54321]

I've never had trouble with the hold button in DA:O. That is, when I remember to turn it on...

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I've never had trouble with the hold button in DA:O. That is, when I remember to turn it on...

The Hold button in DAO works brilliantly (DAO lacks the range limitations of DA2), but it is an all-or-nothing feature.  You can either hold all of the uncontrolled party members or none of them.

Holding only some of them requires creative use of multiple character selection, but it can still be done.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That's not an issue of players focusing on form instead of substance. The ending of ME 3, as is, suggests a large number of outcomes that the writers apparently did not intend. Yes, BioWare's developers ought to be able to convey their intent without epilogue slides, but in this case they failed to do so.

It's not like DA:O where letting a demon remain within Redcliff kid has an obvious outcome, and the epilogue slide is simply reinforcing what we can already guess.

Indont understand why people knock on the epilogue slides of DA:O. They were phenomenally done. 

Yess, we know letting a demon possess Connor will end badly. But if you elected to destroy the Anvil and back bhelen, you find out that they recover it's wreckage and attempt to use it again, to great tragedy and death. That's an unintended consequence that we would have never inferred without the slide. 

So the 'form' of having slides in the ending to handle a myriad of nuanced choices is much better than the substance or function, which is to show not everyone lives happily ever after. The substance of 'not a perfect happy ending in every instance' is irrelevant if you choose the form of vague, unclear endings. It's only if the form is right, as in giving detail and variance, is the substance worth a hill of beans. 

[PASSWORD_IS_TACO]

I'm more concerned with Bioware's obsession with bringing in new players at the tail end of a trilogy; changing the very feel of the game to appeal to a wider fan base that may or may not exist. This comes at a cost to series long fans who see the story take strange turns, combat simplified, and characters more cliched.

[Momiji.mii]

My 2 cents: I don't need nor want the game I play to be exactly the same as the previous ones. I'll preorder DA3 and I look forward to see how Bioware implements the fan feedback. If some people want to assume the worst or spend years worrying about how exactly the game will look/feel/etc, then they're free to do that. But personally, I think it's a waste of time and energy. I'll like it or I won't. The game will be what the game will be, and worrying needlessly doesn't change that.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Momiji.mii wrote...

My 2 cents: I don't need nor want the game I play to be exactly the same as the previous ones. I'll preorder DA3 and I look forward to see how Bioware implements the fan feedback. If some people want to assume the worst or spend years worrying about how exactly the game will look/feel/etc, then they're free to do that. But personally, I think it's a waste of time and energy. I'll like it or I won't. The game will be what the game will be, and worrying needlessly doesn't change that.

I'm not sure if many people would want to share with your sentiment. Well... not anymore, at least.

You should read this article. It's interesting:

The "Mass Effect" controversy does not signal the death of artistic vision or storytelling authority, Travis said. But he suggested that new video game experiences may win over more people from the older, more static forms of storytelling.

"I think authored media will lose some of the prestige they've had as people expect to get more rewarding and interactive experiences from interactive media," Travis said. "But authored media will always have a place because we want to hear about some genius' vision."

Still, even the geniuses must prepare to face new audiences with ever-greater expectations for immersive storytelling that also gives freedom of choice.

"The fact that games of this generation (and only moreso in the future) can deliver cinema-quality storytelling and immersion while also giving consumers greater control than anywhere else completely changes not just expectations, but how creators have to approach narrative," Siegel said.

http://news.yahoo.co...-153612605.html
For furher reading just google "Mass Effect 3's Ending controversy and it's effect on video games industry." I'm sure you could easily get many views from popular producer like George Lucas himself. It's interesting.