83 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

deathadder99 wrote...


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.

As I see it, there's two kinds of players, when difficulty is considered. Those who start on hard and make a second playthrough on nightmare (and would like a third one on impossible maybe - perhaps RPG's need to consider the Civilization difficulty system), and those who are "casual" players, and go for easy and normal. The casual players rage-quit and don't like difficulty, the "hardcore" ones revel in going against all odds, evolving, and playing a nightmare, and do get bored if the game doesn't hold a challenge.

I'd go as far as to claim the latter kind of dragon age fans would prefer strategic combat, while the former would vouch for non-strategy, and "real" fights. The problem is that Bioware has always (before ME) been more into the hardcore side of things, and now going 180 degrees will result with a huge backlash. They should be aware of this, and make some game where the combat is "black" or "white" - not the "grey" mess it was in DA2. They'd make the hardcore segment happy.

Or at least settle for a compromise that doesn't take over certain aspects in full from Origins and ][, but rather found a thrid option that would not infuriate (=will please) the ones who abide by the company's roots, and will not make the casuals ditch the game (they will probably not be as infuriated if DA3 went to Origins or farther, because they've still got tons of games to relieve their expectations).

Modifié par eroeru, 09 mai 2012 - 10:23 .

[Chaoz1994]

I suppose you're right! I consider myself a hardcore player, and Dragon Age to me was the Strategic (hardcore) RPG, where Mass Effect was more a shooter and an action game. I always thought of the two as being both ends of the spectrum. I know that the hardcore segment is a minority, BUT NOT IN BIOWARE'S ESTABLISHED FAN BASE (caps for emphasis). They are a significant chunk of BioWare's fan base, and it would be silly to just ignore them, as BioWare has always catered to that part of the market. I'm all for making lower difficulties more action packed to attract more casuals (I'm not against bioware making money), but they should really leave the higher difficulty to the hardcore gamers, because a lot of hardcore gamers buy bioware games because bioware caters to them, and just because we may not be the majority over all, does not mean we do not have significant weight here.

Edit: As regards to games being in a downward spiral, maybe not, but there is certainly less and less catering to or acknowledging gamers who take games seriously, and it's a continuous trend. Dragon Age:Origins was designed from the ground up to be challenging (it was balanced around "Hard" mode). And it's really a dying breed. Games get easier and easier every year, and people who are looking for a challenge increasingly have to look elsewhere. I'm not sure why - maybe because of the rise of achievements means everyone wants to beat the game on the hardest difficulty.

Modifié par Chaoz1994, 09 mai 2012 - 10:43 .

[Gotholhorakh]

I think that whenever this kind of conversation comes up, people spend far too much time confusing "dumbing down" with "making easier".

I am more concerned with the removal of subtlety and choice from a genre than the difficulty level - you can make a beautiful game easy and you can make a simplistic one very, very difficult.

It does not automatically bring in new fans when you defy the genre's standards for choice and customizability, it takes design genius to break that kind of rule successfully, and I'm sorry but a really great game.

Similarly, if you try to break away from established and wonderfully successful genre tropes and carve out a "protagonist doesn't save the world because we're too cool for that" niche for yourself, you'd better be as sure as hell your writers and your production values can carry it off. Otherwise you come off like a pretentious fool who thinks they can top all the greats, but in fact would be hard pushed to top a pizza satisfactorily.

In conclusion, yes there is lots of dumbing down, but more to the point there is lots of ****tery in the direction of breaking the constraints of the genre, while misunderstanding BOTH a) rpg fans and the standards you have to meet outside the rpg genre - where people don't buy your game - however crappy - because they want a genre game. Unlike RPGs, there is no paucity of action titles.

It's not in principle wrong to chase more money and more gamers - it's totally the right thing to do, but you usually try to strike a balance between annoying your existing fans and flopping in your new target market, rather than simultaneously going full retard on both.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 09 mai 2012 - 10:46 .

[Chaoz1994]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I think that whenever this kind of conversation comes up, people spend far too much time confusing "dumbing down" with "making easier".

I am more concerned with the removal of subtlety and choice from a genre than the difficulty level - you can make a beautiful game easy and you can make a simplistic one very, very difficult.

It does not automatically bring in new fans when you defy the genre's standards for choice and customizability, it takes design genius to break that kind of rule successfully, and I'm sorry but a really great game.

Similarly, if you try to break away from established and wonderfully successful genre tropes and carve out a "protagonist doesn't save the world because we're too cool for that" niche for yourself, you'd better be as sure as hell your writers and your production values can carry it off. Otherwise you come off like a pretentious fool who thinks they can top all the greats, but in fact would be hard pushed to top a pizza satisfactorily.

In conclusion, yes there is lots of dumbing down, but more to the point there is lots of ****tery in the direction of breaking the constraints of the genre, while misunderstanding BOTH a) rpg fans and the standards you have to meet outside the rpg genre - where people don't buy your game - however crappy - because they want a genre game. Unlike RPGs, there is no paucity of action titles.

I agree entirely. I suppose even in my own mind I'm confusing making easier with dumbed down. They aren't quite the same but a dumbed down game is a lot of the time easier anyway. And removing choice from an RPG is a big no.

[AkiKishi]

Filament wrote...

wsandista wrote...

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.

Please.

Roleplaying is a headgame, always has been. While it's not too difficult to imagine stuff into the game. If it's not contradicted,then anything goes. Trying to imagine stuff out of the game on the other hand is dellusional.

That's what people have been doing from the time of listed choices. Only rather than an actor, it was a writer.

RPGs are becoming more intergrated, removing the need for imagination. Not everyone can do, or wants to do that. They want a complete game with a complete character. Bioware has been going in that direction since ME. Witcher and Deus Ex are already there. JRPGs have been there there for years.

[whykikyouwhy]

eroeru wrote...

As I see it, there's two kinds of players, when difficulty is considered. Those who start on hard and make a second playthrough on nightmare (and would like a third one on impossible maybe - perhaps RPG's need to consider the Civilization difficulty system), and those who are "casual" players, and go for easy and normal. The casual players rage-quit and don't like difficulty, the "hardcore" ones revel in going against all odds, evolving, and playing a nightmare, and do get bored if the game doesn't hold a challenge.

That's a pretty broad generalization - for both sides of your rather extreme spectrum.

[Gibb_Shepard]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

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. 

Don't give me that. This is not evolution. The only thing being added to RPGs, particularly from Bioware, is cinematics and VAing.

Cutting content is not evolution or growth. It never was and never will be.

You know, kind of off topic, but i really have to wonder just how much of the original DAO crew also made DA2. I mean the games are so incredibly different that i can't really fathom the same team working on it. Would the entire team seriously be okay with such an enormous 180 to the series that they had been working on for 5 years? Really? I can't believe that. There had to be a major team swap.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 09 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[Icinix]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

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. 

Don't give me that. This is not evolution. The only thing being added to RPGs, particularly from Bioware, is cinematics and VAing.

Cutting content is not evolution or growth. It never was and never will be.

You know, kind of off topic, but i really have to wonder just how much of the original DAO crew also made DA2. I mean the games are so incredibly different that i can't really fathom the same team working on it. Would the entire team seriously be okay with such an enormous 180 to the series that they had been working on for 5 years? Really? I can't believe that. There had to be a major team swap.

After DA2s release there did seem to be a lot of scorn and distaste for DAO. Which is amazing you know, because of its artistic integrity and all that. *friendly ribbing, half serious, chill people*

DAO still captures me more than the latest Mass Effect or Dragon Age games and more than many modern releases, and the way they talked down about it was pretty bad.

[Chaoz1994]

@Gibb Just for interest http://social.biowar...index/4982457/1 the lead designer of Dragon Age quit to some extent over DA2, after being at bioware 10 years.

[LeBurns]

Well OP thanks for the link. Interesting read and I do agree with it. The quote in my sig really states my mind on the matter.

I've been playing CRPG's since the old D&D Gold Box series (and P&P D&D before that). I am very glad that CRPG's have advanced. I'll be honest I did not play DA:O for a long time because of the changes they made, especially to attributes and such. And I really hated how depressed the elves history was. But once I started playing DA:O I couldn't stop and ended up playing at least 20 complete games using various races and classes. I was looking forward to DA2 but saw some things that didn't sit well with me again before it came out. I thought at first it may be like DA:O where I at first thought it couldn't be right but later enjoyed it. Well I didn't pre-order and I played the demo. That was enough to let me know that DA2 had just changed way too much and wasn't for me.

Been playing Skryim now nearly non-stop since it was released (have always been a big TES fan). Not a perfect game either but for someone with an open imagination the game has nearly unlimited possibilities.

[Chaoz1994]

Skyrim is the first elder scrolls game I've not hated. The combat is still marginally more advanced than minecraft's, but it's really a good game. The protagonist isn't voiced either and that doesn't make it any less immersive. I'm glad to see that bioware is taking a look at skyrim for da3 at least (inspiration, not a clone hopefully). DA:O combat, a bioware story, great characters, coupled with a couple ideas from skyrim to make the world seem more alive (NOT OPEN WORLD). Would be awesome.
Edit: Skyrim and DA:O finishing moves are cool and people love them. Bring em back for DA3.

Modifié par Chaoz1994, 09 mai 2012 - 12:41 .

[Icinix]

Chaoz1994 wrote...

Skyrim is the first elder scrolls game I've not hated. The combat is still marginally more advanced than minecraft's, but it's really a good game. The protagonist isn't voiced either and that doesn't make it any less immersive. I'm glad to see that bioware is taking a look at skyrim for da3 at least (inspiration, not a clone hopefully). DA:O combat, a bioware story, great characters, coupled with a couple ideas from skyrim to make the world seem more alive (NOT OPEN WORLD). Would be awesome.

Just played Jade Empire this last week - the lack of a voiced protagonist actually drew me in further. I felt like I was more in control of the player and their actions as opposed to a gamer watching.

[whykikyouwhy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Don't give me that. This is not evolution. The only thing being added to RPGs, particularly from Bioware, is cinematics and VAing.

Cutting content is not evolution or growth. It never was and never will be.

You know, kind of off topic, but i really have to wonder just how much of the original DAO crew also made DA2. I mean the games are so incredibly different that i can't really fathom the same team working on it. Would the entire team seriously be okay with such an enormous 180 to the series that they had been working on for 5 years? Really? I can't believe that. There had to be a major team swap.

In a broad sense, are you saying that all growth occurs without any reduction in things? That there's no such thing as growth and change without removing aspects that might be deemed less effective or outdated from a technology standpoint? That's an interesting perspective, if so. And I can't say that I agree.

There seems to be this standpoint of "this is what an RPG should be" and then, when looking at DA2, or recent games from Bioware, saying "this doesn't measure up - it does not equal an RPG." Again, how people define RPGs, or what RPGs mean to them and why they play them, differs from person to person. Folks who have started playing RPGs years ago may enjoy some of the features or the gameplay in current RPGs. That's the beauty of the genre - that it can appeal to many people on many different levels.

So too, quite a few players who loved DA:O also enjoyed DA2, and vice versa. Some folks who played DA2 first went back to play DA:O and loved it and are excited for more. There's all manner of variables to consider with the fandom of the francise - with how players relate to either or both games. Like and dislike overlap across the board.

Bioware's games have always been strong in the story department - that seems to be the core of how they approach game-making. I'd say that is still consistent. There's not some 180-degree shift between the two DA games. 

[Chaoz1994]

Icinix wrote...

Chaoz1994 wrote...

Skyrim is the first elder scrolls game I've not hated. The combat is still marginally more advanced than minecraft's, but it's really a good game. The protagonist isn't voiced either and that doesn't make it any less immersive. I'm glad to see that bioware is taking a look at skyrim for da3 at least (inspiration, not a clone hopefully). DA:O combat, a bioware story, great characters, coupled with a couple ideas from skyrim to make the world seem more alive (NOT OPEN WORLD). Would be awesome.

Just played Jade Empire this last week - the lack of a voiced protagonist actually drew me in further. I felt like I was more in control of the player and their actions as opposed to a gamer watching.

Sorry, should have made it clearer. I'm all in favour of a non voiced protagonist, and I'm just pointing out that you don't need one to be immersive. It also allows for a lot more character development with different conversation options, and is cheaper! (plus, easier to have more playable races - or even get your warden back).

[Icinix]

Chaoz1994 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Chaoz1994 wrote...

Skyrim is the first elder scrolls game I've not hated. The combat is still marginally more advanced than minecraft's, but it's really a good game. The protagonist isn't voiced either and that doesn't make it any less immersive. I'm glad to see that bioware is taking a look at skyrim for da3 at least (inspiration, not a clone hopefully). DA:O combat, a bioware story, great characters, coupled with a couple ideas from skyrim to make the world seem more alive (NOT OPEN WORLD). Would be awesome.

Just played Jade Empire this last week - the lack of a voiced protagonist actually drew me in further. I felt like I was more in control of the player and their actions as opposed to a gamer watching.

Sorry, should have made it clearer. I'm all in favour of a non voiced protagonist, and I'm just pointing out that you don't need one to be immersive. It also allows for a lot more character development with different conversation options, and is cheaper! (plus, easier to have more playable races - or even get your warden back).

Oh I fully agree - I was just agreeing with you by adding another opinion as opposed to outright posting I agree.

[deathadder99]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Don't give me that. This is not evolution. The only thing being added to RPGs, particularly from Bioware, is cinematics and VAing.

Cutting content is not evolution or growth. It never was and never will be.

You know, kind of off topic, but i really have to wonder just how much of the original DAO crew also made DA2. I mean the games are so incredibly different that i can't really fathom the same team working on it. Would the entire team seriously be okay with such an enormous 180 to the series that they had been working on for 5 years? Really? I can't believe that. There had to be a major team swap.

In a broad sense, are you saying that all growth occurs without any reduction in things? That there's no such thing as growth and change without removing aspects that might be deemed less effective or outdated from a technology standpoint? That's an interesting perspective, if so. And I can't say that I agree.

There seems to be this standpoint of "this is what an RPG should be" and then, when looking at DA2, or recent games from Bioware, saying "this doesn't measure up - it does not equal an RPG." Again, how people define RPGs, or what RPGs mean to them and why they play them, differs from person to person. Folks who have started playing RPGs years ago may enjoy some of the features or the gameplay in current RPGs. That's the beauty of the genre - that it can appeal to many people on many different levels.

So too, quite a few players who loved DA:O also enjoyed DA2, and vice versa. Some folks who played DA2 first went back to play DA:O and loved it and are excited for more. There's all manner of variables to consider with the fandom of the francise - with how players relate to either or both games. Like and dislike overlap across the board.

Bioware's games have always been strong in the story department - that seems to be the core of how they approach game-making. I'd say that is still consistent. There's not some 180-degree shift between the two DA games. 

The problem is that DA:O was received a hell of a lot more positively that DA2. DA2 practically split the community in half. Trimming the fat per se isn't a bad thing, but DA2 has had it's fat trimmed so much it's an emaciated shadow of the original. This reflects in the sales, and the mixed reviews. It was not entirely unrealistic to expect something like DA:O, for DA2, yet we were given an almost entirely different game. The combat was different, we couldn't manage our character's inventory, rendering most loot found entirely useless, and the dialogue wheel restricted our choices (and our imaginations). The first act's story was also just "do odd jobs". It's hard for me to put into words what I didn't like about DA2, but I'm trying. I personally don't agree that a voiced protagonist adds anything - not until we can put our own voice into the game, or choose multiple voices.

Dragon Age 2 really was just an RPG-lite. That's not a bad thing, until you put it into the context of the first one. All the little RPG features such as full inventory management, having to unlock the different specialisations, making dubious moral decisions, well thought out fights, they were all gone, and instead we got a wheel that helped force us into a binary character (not quite as badly as Mass Effect, but still). Cutting CONTENT, not features is bad and never counts as evolution. We had less choice as to what our character's race could be, re-used environments. We were paying for less. Cutting features is all great if it actually adds something to the game, and yes, maybe some things DID need to be cut from DA:O. But not as many as they did. I'm still clinging on to hope that they trimmed it back to barebones just so that they could see what people REALLY missed, and then add that back into DA3. Idk. We'll have to see. I'm certainly not going to pre-order unless it looks amazing, but I'll watch with interest.

[hoorayforicecream]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Don't give me that. This is not evolution. The only thing being added to RPGs, particularly from Bioware, is cinematics and VAing.

Hyberbole. Cross class combos. Friendship/Rivalry. Personality selection system. There are quite a few things that they've done that aren't just cinematics and voice acting, especially given a shortened development time.

You know, kind of off topic, but i really have to wonder just how much of the original DAO crew also made DA2. I mean the games are so incredibly different that i can't really fathom the same team working on it. Would the entire team seriously be okay with such an enormous 180 to the series that they had been working on for 5 years? Really? I can't believe that. There had to be a major team swap.

If only games had some way to see the names of all the people who worked on them... you could actually look down the lists and compare the names from each project, instead of idly conjecture.

As for the 180 thing... Seriously? DA2 still has the character-driven stories, companion characters, squad-based combat, codex, create-your-own-protagonist, etc. A 180 from Dragon Age Origins would probably be something with no fantasy setting, with no sense of character building, with no companion characters and with no story at all. DA2 is different from DAO, but still has a large number of similar features. A true 180 would be something like Dance Central, which would have no overlap at all. Despite what you insinuate, there are people who liked both DAO and DA2, because there were a good number of qualities that got carried over from DAO to DA2. The two games are not as disparate as you describe, at least not compared to truly different games like Karaoke Revolution or Happy Action Theater.

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

There is a difference between making quality games of a different genre which have zero ties to a previous title and a mediocre sequel which removes/changes fundamental elements which tie it back to the previous title and the genre and implements questionable changes aimed more so at attracting new demogrpahic rather than your base or the people who bought the first game (even though said fanbase was made serveral promises regarding sequel).

Did the makers of Dead Rising assure their fans and the gaming community that the game would still have the baseball elements from their previous games that their fans loved?  Did Devil May Cry intentionally make changes from its acclaimed predecessor with the goal of "streamlining"?

If Bioware wants to make something new like a flight simulator then all power to them.  Just make it an actualy Flight simulator and call it [generic name].  When you preorder your DA3 and find the protagonist at an airfield listening to the landing procedure for a F22 Raptor combat jet, then you'll better understand where myself and a lot of other fans who felt cheated shelling out $60 are coming from.

[Chaoz1994]

The cross class combos are just there to give the impression of strategic combat, when in fact all they make you do is force you to bring a group of a mage/warrior/rogue, homogenising strategy and party set up for most encounters. The squad based combat may as well be gone and just go to ME2 combat where your squad are non controllable (not saying it should, but they could have done it and would not change DA2 combat much). Friendship/Rivalry existed in DA:O, but now instead of leaving you/challenging you, you get a bonus for pissing people off. The personality selection is a rip off from the mass effect paragade system and adds nothing to the dragon age games, because the dragon age morality system is less defined.

Edit: I'm being overly negative because I do not feel dragon age 2 added anything meaningful to the game for me.

Modifié par Chaoz1994, 09 mai 2012 - 02:46 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

If Brian Fargo is to be believed, then the reason RPGs have been "dumbed down" is truly because publishers and developers feel that RPG gamers or a target audience for RPGs are not so smart.

He'd know from experience. Hunted: The Demon Forge was awful. Just awful.

I don't see "dumbing down" as a result of genre blending, the two are often linked, but have no inherent connection. There are many genre blended games that don't suffer from "dumbing down". I'll just throw Dark Souls out there.

What I lament, is how it's all unnecessary.

In essence, everyone is trying to make games accessible (you know, for sales and stuffs), but people conflate accessibility or even simplicity with reducing player input, implementing or cutting aspects in ways that harm the overall picture.

Things like quest compasses or linear maps are examples which are almost industry standard now.

Deus Ex (the original) is a genre blending game with relatively simple mechanics but I've never seen anyone consider it a "dumbed down" game. Because there wasn't a concerted effort to view gamers are not-that-intelligent or needing help navigating the bread and butter elements of the game (outside a tutorial). They can be as intrusive as lengthy cutscenes, or as innocuous as slowing down time when you're near death. The result is the same: reducing the amount of player driven input for the sake of handholding.

Another example. Fallout (1/2) mechanically, is less complex and more accessible than Dragon Age 2.

Let me repeat that.

Fallout (1/2) mechanically, is less complex and more accessible than Dragon Age 2.
.
But why is Dragon Age 2 a "dumbed down RPG-lite" while Fallout 1/2 represent the Plateau of 1990s RPGs?

(sorry, BGs, I liek FO moar. Much moar.)

Because the player is separated from the game mechanics, from interacting with the game in Dragon Age 2. As if the player is not intelligent enough to understand, or appreciate it. That the player should only interact with the game on a superficial level. Which, believe it or not, leads to games that focus on presentation more than substance.

An easy example is the lack of quest or choice as far as specializations go. No hard decisions to make ala Reaver spec in Origins. How about the lack of documentation regarding Dominant Tones? Or the removal of combat logs? No more Tactical Slots as part of character progression? Traps/Locks/etc?

The removal of permanent death for the party is an example that both Dragon Age games had.

And so on.

As for the Beatles/Disco or Why BioWare should/shouldn't be allowed to branch out argument, I think it's telling. People shouldn't begrudge a company for making the kind of games they want (or are being asked to make). Like if the Beatles were to make Disco music. That's fine.

BioWare should be able to make whatever kind of game they want.

But in this example, the difference is that the Beatles are trying to make Disco music while telling their fans it's still Rock. Those that disagree are of course, trolls who are either stuck in the past, or are unable to "get" change and innovation. Of course I'm generalizing, but BSN is BSN, and generalizing or stereotypes are often played out as genuine sentiment.

Personally, I think that BioWare should give up making RPGs and move onto Action or Adventure games. I'd imagine that being unfettered with the constraints of the RPG genre would make their stories better.

As an aside, something I see commonly is that people attach the "RPG" label to quality, or intellect.

That's just silly. Just because it's not an RPG, doesn't mean it's a crap game, or a dumb one. Just means it's not an RPG. FWIW, Dragon Age 2 is an RPG. It just happens to be a bad one IMO.

Quality =/= Genre. So many people equate the two and I see it as the cause of many disagreements here.

Now, while I'm not crazy enough to claim what is an RPG, I'm crazy enough to claim what isn't an RPG (in of itself): if you have the opinion that RPGs are games where you play a role in a story that has choices, then I'm sure you're as excited as I am for Black Ops 2. It's going to be the best selling RPG of all time. OF ALL TIME.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 09 mai 2012 - 02:52 .

[Joy Divison]

Morroian wrote...

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.  

Difference is that Neil Young actually had the intergity not to tell fans that his new album was in the style of After the Gold Rush and Neil Young makes his music not with the intention of selling millions of records but for the sake of making music.

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

Did the makers of Dead Rising assure their fans and the gaming community that the game would still have the baseball elements from their previous games that their fans loved?  Did Devil May Cry intentionally make changes from its acclaimed predecessor with the goal of "streamlining"?

Resident Evil 4 sure did. They changed a ton of stuff between RE3 and RE4 for the sake of streamlining, and RE4 is still considered by many to to be the best game in the series.

[Chaoz1994]

Off topic, can anyone recommend any games like DA:O? Playing a non-BioWare game might give me a new perspective for DA3 anyway. Played all TES games, all bioware games and both Witcher games, so just ignore them. Anything else is fair game. Thanks.

Edit: sorta on topic since we are talking about the evolution of RPGs.

Modifié par Chaoz1994, 09 mai 2012 - 03:05 .

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

Um, no. 

Bioware did not pretend to be a new gaming company to make this change.  Instead they crassly slapped a 2 onto Dragon Age and promised me that the things I loved in Origins would be in the sequel.  I would have appreciated it if Dragon Age 2 was called released by a company called "Lt. Salt" and did not have the name Dragon Age in the title.

Sgt. Pepper was not made for the purpose of attracting new fans, selling millions of records, or expanding their fanbase.  Nor were Lennon/McCartney influenced by data compiled from game achievements.  And it was not nearly the radical departure that you are making it out to be; Rubber Soul makes it pretty clear this was the direction Lennon/McCartney were going after Dylan challenged them to be greater than "Love Me Do."

And did you really just compare DA2 to Sgt. Pepper's?

Modifié par Joy Divison, 09 mai 2012 - 03:11 .