83 réponses à ce sujet

[Jitter]

 You know what im remembering... 
In those games it was not linear.  You could take a ladder from level 5 down to level 8 .... find a staircase that went up to level 7 ..... It wasn't a top down run .... you could get really lost....

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

What's wrong with trying to attract a different demographic? What's wrong with wanting to draw more people into RPGs, fantasy realms, or just gaming in general?

Because it typically results in mediocre and insipid productions.

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Devil May Cry came from a team who were working on Resident Evil games.

Dead Rising was made by a team who had only worked on baseball games before.

Beyond Good and Evil, considered by many to be one of the best games of all time, came from Michel Ancel, the guy who created the Rayman games.

Uncharted came from the Jak + Daxter and Crash Bandicoot guys.

And don't forget, the largest MMORPG in the world came from a company that specialized in RTS and action RPG games.

I'd say that Bioware deserves to try something new. I like what they did, and wish they had more time to polish it. Hopefully DA3 will be take the good concepts from DA2 and give them the necessary development time.

[Maria Caliban]

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 09 mai 2012 - 03:32 .

[wsandista]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Well if they stopped playing rock to play only disco and started demeaning the great music they had made before as well as the fans who bought it loyally...
Quite a lot of people probably would

[Maria Caliban]

Quite a lot of people are idiots.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

I THINK THE ARTICLE IS ON THE MONEY IN SOME CASES, BUT MOSTLY JUST WHERE IT SAYS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS SAYING ABOUT DRAGON AGE 2.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M SOMEWHAT CONFUSED BY THE FACT THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE WRITER SEEMS TO THINK THAT NEW RPGS HAVE MORE OF AN EMPHASIS ON COMBAT THAN OLD RPGS.

[Jitter]

Well they sort of do .....

Rainbows flying out of orifices , while acrobatic back flipping through the air.
Swinging a 30 foot plane wing arround, as if trying to attain liftoff.
Resulting in the the evaporation of the enemy in a haze of red.

I used to be fine with
-> you attack : 12/20 , MISS
->Kobold attacks 18/20 , HIT , 8/12 +1 damage .
->you attack: 4/20 +2 , MISS

Just saying .... i dont need the ..... Hey look something shiny ...
to enjoy a game ...

When the visuals try to compensate for poor game mechanics ... well you get DA2..

Modifié par Jitter, 09 mai 2012 - 03:54 .

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Jitter wrote...

Well they sort of do .....

Rainbows flying out of orifices , while acrobatic back flipping through the air.
Swinging a 30 foot plane wing through the air, as if trying to attain liftoff.
Resulting in the the evaporation of the enemy in a haze of red.

I used to be fine with
-> you attack : 12/20 , MISS
->Kobold attacks 18/20 , HIT , 8/12 +1 damage .
->you attack: 4/20 +2 , MISS

Just saying .... i dont need the ..... Hey look something shiny ...
to enjoy a game ...

When the visuals try to compensate for poor game mechanics ... well you get DA2..

I AGREE WITH THIS. ALTHOUGH I WOULDN'T CONSIDER THIS TO BE A MODERN EMPHASIS ON COMBAT (I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN GET MORE COMBAT-RELATED THAN A DUNGEON CRAWL). IT'S MORE THAT MODERN GAMES FREQUENTLY SEEM MORE INTERESTED IN HOW COMBAT LOOKS THAN HOW COMBAT PLAYS.

[wsandista]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Quite a lot of people are idiots.

Yes people are idiots for not buying a product that they don't want and for telling the maker of said product that it is not what they wanted. Filthy peasants need to learn that their opinons are meaningless and just keep mindlessly buying increasingly sub-standard products.

[Tigerman123]

I don't really remember BG2 requiring anything more out of me mentally than Dragon Age 2, was the story more complex, the language more abstruse, no. I mean I played through and completed BG2 as a preteen without finding it opaque, if you did, well..

[hoorayforicecream]

wsandista wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Well if they stopped playing rock to play only disco and started demeaning the great music they had made before as well as the fans who bought it loyally...
Quite a lot of people probably would

You mean like when they made the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album? The album that had them literally pretend to be another band in order to totally change their sound? The one that spent 15 weeks in the #1 on the Billboard 200, won 4 grammy awards, and was ranked #1 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time?

Edit: I'm sure some people didn't like Sgt. Pepper. It was a radical change from their old style of music, after all. They probably considered themselves the 'true' fans of the Beatles too. Some of them probably gave up on the Beatles after it. But I think most of the people who enjoyed it stayed with the band.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 09 mai 2012 - 04:02 .

[Rorschachinstein]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Not to mention people started a whole Bealtes hate craze after changing. That or it was the "bigger than Jesus" comment

[wsandista]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Well if they stopped playing rock to play only disco and started demeaning the great music they had made before as well as the fans who bought it loyally...
Quite a lot of people probably would

You mean like when they made the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album? The album that had them literally pretend to be another band in order to totally change their sound? The one that spent 15 weeks in the #1 on the Billboard 200, won 4 grammy awards, and was ranked #1 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time?

Edit: I'm sure some people didn't like Sgt. Pepper. It was a radical change from their old style of music, after all. They probably considered themselves the 'true' fans of the Beatles too. Some of them probably gave up on the Beatles after it. But I think most of the people who enjoyed it stayed with the band.

It wasn't AS radical a change as going from rock to disco would have been. A better analogy is Elvis from his rockabilly roots to the rhinestone encrusted jumpsuit ballads.

[Jitter]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Well if they stopped playing rock to play only disco and started demeaning the great music they had made before as well as the fans who bought it loyally...
Quite a lot of people probably would

You mean like when they made the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album? The album that had them literally pretend to be another band in order to totally change their sound? The one that spent 15 weeks in the #1 on the Billboard 200, won 4 grammy awards, and was ranked #1 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time?

Edit: I'm sure some people didn't like Sgt. Pepper. It was a radical change from their old style of music, after all. They probably considered themselves the 'true' fans of the Beatles too. Some of them probably gave up on the Beatles after it. But I think most of the people who enjoyed it stayed with the band.

Well yes the sound was different , but to try to say on course with the comparison , They marketed it as a different band. not like the White Album 2 , and then launched into yellow submarine.  You knew it was someting different.
Its not like Paul show'd up with a digree-do , and ringo was the new front man , with yoko ono on drums. 
They were the same guys , doing their thing ..they were just tripping balls on acid.... 

DA2 was more like this guy rocking out with Metallica  Ride the Lightning .. 


 

[hoorayforicecream]

Jitter wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Yes. Who in their right minds would stop respecting the Beatles if they tried a disco album?

"Hey greatest rock band ever, you suck now because you did a disco album and I don't like disco!"

Well if they stopped playing rock to play only disco and started demeaning the great music they had made before as well as the fans who bought it loyally...
Quite a lot of people probably would

You mean like when they made the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album? The album that had them literally pretend to be another band in order to totally change their sound? The one that spent 15 weeks in the #1 on the Billboard 200, won 4 grammy awards, and was ranked #1 on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest albums of all time?

Edit: I'm sure some people didn't like Sgt. Pepper. It was a radical change from their old style of music, after all. They probably considered themselves the 'true' fans of the Beatles too. Some of them probably gave up on the Beatles after it. But I think most of the people who enjoyed it stayed with the band.

Well yes the sound was different , but to try to say on course with the comparison , They marketed it as a different band. not like the White Album 2 , and then launched into yellow submarine.  You knew it was someting different.
Its not like Paul show'd up with a digree-do , and ringo was the new front man , with yoko ono on drums. 
They were the same guys , doing their thing ..they were just tripping balls on acid.... 

DA2 was more like this guy rocking out with Metallica  Ride the Lightning .. 

I disagree. I respect your opinion, but I still disagree. The reasons *I* like Dragon Age were all still there - I liked the characters, I liked the relationships, I liked the systems, I liked the squad-based combat. I liked the voiced protagonist, I liked the idea of talent trees instead of talent lines. I like the friendship/rivalry system, I like the overall story structure. I like the personality system, and I think these are all excellent things to try to polish and improve on. I know they weren't perfect, but I like them anyway because I think that they all have potential to be even more fun than they were.

I wish that they had more time to polish out the problems (and there were plenty of problems). But I look at DA2 like I look at Naughty Dog's first Uncharted game... it was pretty good, but had some things that needed ironing out. I hope that the next game will be like the jump in quality from Uncharted to Uncharted 2.

[Anomaly-]

Regarding the article itself: it may take a tone some might not enjoy, but I have to say I agree with pretty much everything.

Tommyspa wrote...

Ah, condescension, always the prerogative of those who are no longer being pandered to endlessly.

Endlessly? The type of game people like myself enjoy has always been something of a niche. Now it's all but extinct. I'd really just like to be pandered to by someone. Anyone.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I don't have the energy to comment on everything that article gets entirely wrong, so I'm just going to quote this comment it makes about Origins:

environments were plentiful, expansive and various

I really don't see anything wrong with that quote, especially in comparison to DA2.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 09 mai 2012 - 04:24 .

[Jestina]

It's more like the bells and whistles have become the focus. Cinematics and voice acting being the top two. For getting VA shoved down our throats in DA2, we got a limited character creation process and less content in general. Bioware has made it pretty clear they have become more interested in the here today, gone tomorrow, casual players...and they've alienated their hardcore players.That's not just a trend with Bioware though. If you look in the RPG category, you'll see that it is mainly filled with action games...some of which may have RPG elements, but are not actually RPGs.

[Morroian]

 

deathadder99 wrote...

All of this is just IMO. It's not "elitist nonsense", it's BioWare ignoring the fans who have been loyal for 10 years+, in order to attract an entirely different demographic. There's a reason DA2 sold so terribly. I play CoD too, and I play RPGs, but I hate action RPGs. If I play an RPG (especially a bioware RPG) I want to be strategic, and I want an adventure with great story and characters. If I play CoD I want something that isn't too taxing on the brain but needs twitch reflexes and aiming skill. The games should be entirely separate.   

 
Why? Seems to me that is a personal preference not a rule. There is no objective reason why they can't cross pollinate.

deathadder99 wrote...
Dragon age is not an action RPG. Dragon Age is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate,  

 
Not IMHO, and yes I've played BG2, its more like kotor in a fantasy universe IMHO.

ChookAttack wrote...

 I'm pushing 50 and DA2 was as far from a RPG as I can remember a claimed RPG getting.

Hmm when ME2 and 3 are pushed as rpgs, when Deus Ex HR is pushed as an rpg I'd say there are plenty of claimed rpgs much much farther away from being an rpg. Heck I'd argue that DA2 is much more an rpg than action rpgs like Diablo and Dark Souls.

Joy Divison wrote...

Would have have respected the Beatles if they made a disco record to attract new fans?

Sure, I'm a big Neil Young fan and respect his experimentation with say electronic music with Trans.  

Modifié par Morroian, 09 mai 2012 - 07:00 .

[slashthedragon]

Jestina wrote...

It's more like the bells and whistles have become the focus. Cinematics and voice acting being the top two. For getting VA shoved down our throats in DA2, we got a limited character creation process and less content in general. Bioware has made it pretty clear they have become more interested in the here today, gone tomorrow, casual players...and they've alienated their hardcore players.That's not just a trend with Bioware though. If you look in the RPG category, you'll see that it is mainly filled with action games...some of which may have RPG elements, but are not actually RPGs.

This makes me so very, very sad.
And I don't know why voice acting is such a given nowadays, especially when I've seen a lot of reviews (not just for DA2) that say they don't feel the voice acting was all that well done.

[wsandista]

slashthedragon wrote...

This makes me so very, very sad.
And I don't know why voice acting is such a given nowadays, especially when I've seen a lot of reviews (not just for DA2) that say they don't feel the voice acting was all that well done.

Because some do not want to roleplay, they want to pick a general direction and have an actor roleplay for them.

[eroeru]

areuexperienced wrote...


Thank you. My first RPG was KOTOR back when I was in primary school and I enjoyed the story to no end but the combat was frankly boring, tedious and felt like a chore, in my opinion,  I remember having to punch in cheat codes just so that I could properly enjoy the game.  
I've loved BioWare's games since then but my experience with DA:O was mostly the same as with KOTOR, bar the cheat-codes. DA2 I felt carried over the great things about BioWare games in general - the story and the characters, whilst making the combat experience a lot more enjoyable. And yes, combat IS important, it's basically half the time you spend in the game and as much as I enjoy a good story, I've quit DA:O more than once due to being bored to tears of the monotony that the combat there is.

It's good to see a proponent who speaks much sense.

But it is important to say that DA:O had very good combat - it was near perfect for the chess-player in me, as it offered the distinction of discrete movements - this made it have strategic depth as such. Did you play it on Nightmare (or Hard)? I'm fairly confident that the merits of a slower combat will show to all if you accept the challenge behind the system, if they get you to a place where they need every slowly-moving second to calibrate the character's actions. This was fantastic in Origins, and not doable in 2, as different actions were a blunder there, and pause-to-play was rendered meaningless by the inability to differentiate actions. This was in fact one of the greatest downfalls of the game to me - it took away the intellectual challenge.

And this is what is argued in such articles (the article in this case very much subjective, but honorable and well-versed still - I for one tend to agree with it) - DA2 lacks intellectual merit. Though very many aspects can be said to be simply wrong, I'd argue that even, say, the reuse of environments was intellectually crippling - anyone with half a mind will notice the invariations. So were the "more simplistic" (or in my opinion simply more dumb) characters, mainly the "variations" of Hawke. And the art-work where cartoons and flashy ridiculous assets (darkspawn) were thrown in Origins' (fans') face.

The "high" or "low" nature of intellect isn't a matter we should discuss - and in the end it's if not subjective, then freely decided by every single person. But it is quite clear that DA:O combat (and other assets) appealed to intellectual enjoyment. And if you market a sequel that's gone 180 degrees in this aspect, the ones with the intellectual investment will surely be mad.

The Beatles' analogy was an ok one. Though I'd vouch for one that has Dostojevski writing Twilight.

(Edited for clarity and grammatical mistakes.)

Modifié par eroeru, 09 mai 2012 - 10:10 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

With regard to this statement:

deathadder99 wrote...

All of this is just IMO. It's not "elitist nonsense", it's BioWare ignoring the fans who have been loyal for 10 years+, in order to attract an entirely different demographic.

What's wrong with trying to attract a different demographic? What's wrong with wanting to draw more people into RPGs, fantasy realms, or just gaming in general? 

Because to do that they're diluting their games. Instead of adding more things to attract customers, they're just slicing chucks of the games. 

This is hapenning to most RPG games, and it's ****ing terrible. I love shooters, i love RPGs. Why does one have have to start making itself like the other because devs are strapped for innovative ideas? 

I hate where RPGs are going.  And if someone doesn't start heading in the other direction, it's going to get far worse. Soon we're going to have one damn genre because that's what the majority likes. A gaming world without variety is a gaming world i don't want to be a part of.

[deathadder99]

Morroian wrote...

deathadder99 wrote...
Dragon age is not an action RPG. Dragon Age is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate,  

 
Not IMHO, and yes I've played BG2, its more like kotor in a fantasy universe IMHO.
 

 
KoTOR was based on BG2 to some extent. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect something similiar to BG2 for DA2. Sure, if it was an entirely new IP, fine. But Dragon Age was not marketed as an action RPG, it was marketed as "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate".

eroeru wrote...

areuexperienced wrote...
Snip

But it is important to say that DA:O had very good combat - it was near perfect for the chess-player in me, as it offered the distinction of discreet movements - this made it have strategic depth as such. Did you play it on Nightmare (or Hard)? I'm fairly confident that the merits of a slower combat will show to all if they accept the challenge behind the system, if they get to a place where they need every slowly-moving second to calibrate their actions. This was fantastic in Origins, and not doable in 2, as different actions were a blunder there, and pause-to-play was rendered meaningless by the inability to differentiate actions. This was in fact one of the greatest downfalls of the game to me - it took away the intellectual challenge. 

Yes, leave the lower difficulty for the action fans, Nightmare is intended for (paraphrasing BioWare) "Strategic Geniuses". I don't mind if you can play the lower difficulties like an action game, but the higher difficulties should need strategy (and not this WoW-like raid boss strategy that DA2 had, maybe more to do how the fights were designed). Maybe if they can't be reconciled then they should give you a choice of ACTION and RPG at the start. ACTION would buff the player character and make them more powerful, and nerf the companions (but give them a good set of default tactics), so they are more support. RPG would keep all the strategy and all characters would be equally powerful and need to work together to suceed. But focus on RPG and just give ACTION for people who REALLY don't wanna use strategy much. There are generals, and there are soldiers, and they both require a different skill set. Normally, squad based combat is for generals.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

With regard to this statement:

deathadder99 wrote...

All of this is just IMO. It's not "elitist nonsense", it's BioWare ignoring the fans who have been loyal for 10 years+, in order to attract an entirely different demographic.

What's wrong with trying to attract a different demographic? What's wrong with wanting to draw more people into RPGs, fantasy realms, or just gaming in general? 

Because to do that they're diluting their games. Instead of adding more things to attract customers, they're just slicing chucks of the games. 

This is hapenning to most RPG games, and it's ****ing terrible. I love shooters, i love RPGs. Why does one have have to start making itself like the other because devs are strapped for innovative ideas? 

I hate where RPGs are going.  And if someone doesn't start heading in the other direction, it's going to get far worse. Soon we're going to have one damn genre because that's what the majority likes. A gaming world without variety is a gaming world i don't want to be a part of.

Quote for Truth. It's great if more people come and enjoy Dragon Age with me, if they make it more accessible. That's great. But if you're actively dumbing down your game to make it appeal to the mass market, well you've lost me. If you're making it like a shooter, why shouldn't I just buy a shooter? (Mass Effect was always a shooter, but I played it as such,  Dragon Age was not) The thing is, when great companies stop making 'pure' RPGs, then there's less competition - and incentive to make them great too - for companies who actually do make proper RPGs. (less and less these days, probably the only RPG which hasn't diluted itself with action or FPS crap recently is Pokemon- which I personally do enjoy from time to time!) I haven't seen many good RPGs recently which have turn based and/or strategic combat and I'm honestly tempted to start playing P&P games to scratch that itch (unfortunately nothing good where I live, but moving soon).



Edit: As regards to the Beatles making Disco music metaphor, this is mine :
It's (pretty much exactly) like replacing the table top D&D combat with "real time fast paced action combat" to attract new players. Ignoring the fact that that would be pretty much impossible, how many D&D players do you think would embrace such a system?

Modifié par deathadder99, 09 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Because to do that they're diluting their games. Instead of adding more things to attract customers, they're just slicing chucks of the games. 

This is hapenning to most RPG games, and it's ****ing terrible. I love shooters, i love RPGs. Why does one have have to start making itself like the other because devs are strapped for innovative ideas? 

I hate where RPGs are going.  And if someone doesn't start heading in the other direction, it's going to get far worse. Soon we're going to have one damn genre because that's what the majority likes. A gaming world without variety is a gaming world i don't want to be a part of.

RPGs have been morphing and changing since the early 80's. What may have been classified as an RPG then probably would be called something else now, maybe with a letter added to the name. What sparks many of these conversations, or adds subsequent fuel to the fire, is that people generally do not agree on what an RPG is - and this is mostly based on their exposure to them.

The melding of genres or the borrowing of elements/traits isn't a bad thing, imo. It fosters growth and change, and while that growth may be rocky at first, or slow (because some change comes in phases and needs to build), it can stabilize to produce something quite solid and enjoyable. Though, what a person deems enjoyable is incredibly subjective - which seems to be the crux behind many a discussion here.

Is DnD the same game that it was at its inception in 1974? And what about in the late 70's when the Basic Set was introduced....to bring in new players? Did the game suffer greatly from the switch over to the d20 system 20+ years later? When TSR was absorbed by WotC, did the entire DnD universe crumple? 

I think it really comes down to a few things - what players are looking for when they play, and what players expect from a certain developer. We all play for different reasons. Some of us enjoy the combat aspect, some of us enjoy the narrative, some love the dialogue and banter, some thrill at the scope of the world. Bioware wants to try different things in their games - I applaud that, because those efforts might not only bridge the gap between players, but may introduce something nifty cool to the game franchise. Companies will make tweaks and changes in order to try and find the most efficient and effective way to gather customers and to showcase their product - which, in this case, is the telling of a story and giving the grand tour of a fantasy world. 

We don't know yet what DA3 (or whatever the next thing is) will be - how it will look or feel. It may meld some aspects of DA:O and DA2 together (of course, whether you see those aspects of either as the best or the worst is again entirely subjective). But it would be unfair right now to say that DA2 is indicative of some downward spiral. We're too early in the lifespan of the franchise to make those kinds of assumptions.