311 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Back when CRPGs were first around and a bit later, the majority of people playing them had PnP experience. I PnP'd from around age 12 till when I left Uni. I don't think that is the case anymore and I think the games reflect that. JRPGs which evolved outside of any PnP influence seem to be the new inspiration.

Which is a shame.  I continue to insist that any computer roleplaying game should, as its primary objective, attempt to recreate a tabletop roleplaying game experience, but without the need for other people.

[joshko]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Back when CRPGs were first around and a bit later, the majority of people playing them had PnP experience. I PnP'd from around age 12 till when I left Uni. I don't think that is the case anymore and I think the games reflect that. JRPGs which evolved outside of any PnP influence seem to be the new inspiration.

Which is a shame.  I continue to insist that any computer roleplaying game should, as its primary objective, attempt to recreate a tabletop roleplaying game experience, but without the need for other people.

I agree, I really like the PnP setup.

[deuce985]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The combination between exploration and interaction with companions is great for me regarding the RP experience. I can even say it's what I'm looking for (among other things) in a RPG like DA.
As this thread is about exploration I will not get into the other things here .

A game doesn't need to be very long if the content is satisfying. As mentioned above I indeed prefer a game that contains 30 hours filled with stuff to see and to do then a game that lasts 60 hours with a lot of 'nothing interesting to do' or is repetative with things.

Heh, think the perfect game should be in duration between 25 and 35 hours of gameplay depending on the players need 'to explore or not to explore'. This related to the mentioned 30 hours gameplay.

I agree with this and what Allan said. They had too many parts in both DA:O and DA2 that weren't interesting. I can remember several parts in DA:O that just made me say, "why am I doing this and why is it related to the main plot". The Alienage and Fade were particularly the parts I didn't find interesting. That disappointed me a bit because I wanted to know more about how Elves were treated in city lifestyle and the mysterious Fade. They just didn't seem all that well done, IMO. Running around the Fade felt like a chore rather than being interesting. Luckily, that wasn't a common problem in DA:O.

I haven't seen many games make a really long experience where most of the game avoided filler parts. Running around Skyrim's world is exactly what I'm talking about. Way too much filler content between everything you do. If you look at it closely, even the dungeon designs are the same...that's not very interesting to me(although Skyrim is a great game regardless). Bethesda could make a far more polished game if the content was scaled back and polished it more. That way maybe they could devote more resources into things like more unique dungeon designs? I'd accept a scaled back Skyrim for a more interesting experience. When you first step into that game, everything is epic. Then everything starts feeling the same. Even the dragon encounters are the same. I'd gladly take Skyrim as a 40 hour game that is amazing at every step over a 400+ hour game loaded with filler content...

And I feel the same about DA3. But I do think a game like this has to have least a set amount of hours to get every plot point and character development in. I could never see DA being a 10 hour game. I don't think it's possible they could get the plot and character development I'm so accustomed to seeing in Bioware games.

Modifié par deuce985, 06 juin 2012 - 06:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

For an employee of Bioware, I would think this would have to be a pre-requisite.

If people are going to be pedantic about definitions, coupled with other people already scrutinizing other things that I say and what video games I'm supposed to like, then I'm already starting to feel more adversarial on these boards.

My point was that I don't think people need to even KNOW what "roleplaying" is in order to enjoy Baldur's Gate. Or KOTOR. Or Dragon Age. Heck, I'd even be willing to bet money that a significant majority of those that like those games have limited to no interest in even attempting to play a PnP game experience.

When I played my first CRPG, I had no idea what PnP was. I just know that I liked it. What I also know is that that one time I tried playing a PnP game, it was awfully run and soured me on the experience. It was something I only considered doing because I enjoyed CRPGs based on D&D so much (the Gold Box games in particular).


What I find most interesting is that, when comparing good PnP sessions (I sit in on the retellings with my team because they're damned entertaining), is that the "old school" RPG delivers very little of the experience provided in those retellings. Neither do the modern ones.


When I first played Ultima 6, it was a cool adventure with swords and sorcery. When I first played Eye of the Beholder (just the demo at the time!) it was cool playing around with the different characters running around the first two levels killing monsters and casting spells. I was hella confused why lower AC was somehow better, or even how the combat rules worked. But I didn't care, it was fun.

I dabbled a bit with FF6 and FF7, because they had fun stories and awesome characters. Ultima VII was effectively a "living world" with people running around on their own schedules. I was brutal at the game (needed a hint book to do anything productive), but it was fun. I loved it enough to ask for a gaming computer.

When I played Fallout, I basically created myself. "Roleplayers" have often told me that "I'm doing it wrong" by playing it this way. But it was fun. I loved how reactive the game was and it was the first game I'd played that seemed to properly account for such little nuances. This game (and Half-Life) turned me into a PC Gamer for life.

In Baldur's Gate I picked the Paladin because the idea of a magic casting warrior (I'm partial to warriors) was awesome. I rerolled until I was able to min/max my character, which was 18 in all stats except for intellect (which was 3). Because intellect was irrelevant for my character's power. I played it, and loved it (especially the MP). Unfortunately I never finished it because I had just borrowed a friend's DVD, but I did import that character into BG2 which was a fantastic game. I made my Paladin a Cavalier (since I hated switching to bows anyways). But all of my decisions revolved around "How can I make my character more powerful." I had no concept of what "roleplaying" was, and for me a roleplaying game was a game that had character progression (even mediocre character progression like martial classes had in AD&D). It didn't hurt that I was somewhat familiar with the AD&D ruleset.

When I first loaded up PST, it was a wall of text and too intimidating. I actually put it off and replayed BG2. It wasn't until I sat down and went "lets give this another try." It was the first game that really made me go "I like the characters in this game more than anything else about the game." It was the first game where I started to see appropriate reactivity to my alignment based upon my choices, which made me go "Hey, this is really cool" (I still save scummed because I saw myself as Lawful Good).

It wasn't until KOTOR (by this time I'm 22 years old and have been apparently playing RPGs wrong for the last 13 or so years) that I actually decided to go into the game with a player archetype that wasn't just myself, and (most importantly) decided that I was going to fully accept the consequences for all of my actions, [i]regardless of what they were.[/] I did go into the game with an idea of being a "good guy soldier" that rationalizes the dark side use "for the greater good." Ultimately I ended with a fully evil character as the dark side consumed me, and I was like "You know, I found this even more fun. I'll continue to play games this way."


But given that I actually thought that "Dungeons and Dragons" was a computer game franchise growing up, it's a bit of a sore point when someone implies that I'm not qualified for my job because I evidently don't understand roleplaying and the fact that I even need to ask is now cause for concern.

If knowing how to roleplay is so vital to enjoying RPGs, how come I was able to do it for so long without even having an inkling of a clue what a PnP roleplaying session was? My first experience with PnP roleplaying came in late 1997. This was after I had played more than a handful of CRPGs. Since the session was unfun (I died 10 minutes in) I went home and played this new game, Fallout. It was significantly more enjoyable for me. I hated PnP gaming but loved CRPGs. If understanding "roleplaying" and knowing that PnP is where it's all that is a prerequisite for liking RPG video games, then I guess I really slipped through the cracks.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 juin 2012 - 07:04 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Back when CRPGs were first around and a bit later, the majority of people playing them had PnP experience. I PnP'd from around age 12 till when I left Uni. I don't think that is the case anymore and I think the games reflect that. JRPGs which evolved outside of any PnP influence seem to be the new inspiration.

Which is a shame.  I continue to insist that any computer roleplaying game should, as its primary objective, attempt to recreate a tabletop roleplaying game experience, but without the need for other people.

There lies the problem. Many gamers now who play crpgs and other games did not grow up with the pnp experience. We who did expect the crpg experience to model the pnp experience. If you did not grow up with that experience your expectations are different.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 07:11 .

[Realmzmaster]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Uhm, I have been playing games for maaaany years but have no clue what PnP stands for.......
Maybe I do know but just not know the shortwriting in english.

Can someone explain it to me please?

PnP means paper and pen. It refers to games like Dungeons and Dragons.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 07:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It wasn't until KOTOR (by this time I'm 22 years old and have been apparently playing RPGs wrong for the last 13 or so years) that I actually decided to go into the game with a player archetype that wasn't just myself, and (most importantly) decided that I was going to fully accept the consequences for all of my actions, [i]regardless of what they were.[/] I did go into the game with an idea of being a "good guy soldier" that rationalizes the dark side use "for the greater good." Ultimately I ended with a fully evil character as the dark side consumed me, and I was like "You know, I found this even more fun. I'll continue to play games this way."

This is the important part of what you said, and it's terrific.  You show here that you understand what roleplaying is, and that it is fun.  This means that you can design a computer game that allows roleplaying.  It doesn't necessarily need to require roleplaying (as you point out, most CRPGs haven't required any such thing), but it does need to allow roleplaying.  For those of us who go into every game trying to roleplay a character of our own design, this is a make-or-break characteristic of any game.

Incidentally, I remember trying to play FF7 after it being recommended to me by a friend.  I entered it as I always do, with a clear character concept in mind (having already had 13 years of CRPG experience).  And I hated it.  FF7 doesn't allow roleplaying of the sort we've just described.  The player doesn't have any input at all into why Cloud does the things he does.  Cloud is asked straightforward Yes-No questions where all of the available responss are variations on Yes.  FF7 was one of the least pleasant gaming experiences I have ever had.  I disliked it so much I sold my PSX.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Back when CRPGs were first around and a bit later, the majority of people playing them had PnP experience. I PnP'd from around age 12 till when I left Uni. I don't think that is the case anymore and I think the games reflect that. JRPGs which evolved outside of any PnP influence seem to be the new inspiration.

Which is a shame.  I continue to insist that any computer roleplaying game should, as its primary objective, attempt to recreate a tabletop roleplaying game experience, but without the need for other people.

There lies the problem. Many gamers now who play crpgs and other games did not grow up with the pnp experience. We who did expect the crpg experience to model the pnp experience. If you did not grow up with that experience your expectations are different.

A game can serve those other expectations without abandoning ours.  Many games have.  As Allan points out, he played many classic CRPGs without having any conception of how tabletop gaming worked (or even actively disliking tabletop gaming).

A game doesn't need to force any particular playstyle.

[Realmzmaster]

@Allan Schumacher

Having a background in PnP roleplaying systems is not a prerequisite for having fun with computer role playing games. Please do not feel adversarial. A lot of gamers on this forum (myself included) come from that background. Many tend to think that roleplaying games must mirrior or model the tabletop experience.

I do not. My definition of roleplaying is not that narrow. I am like you I want to have fun. Some gamers like you fell into crpgs with having any pnp experience. Nothing wrong with that.

The expectations are simply different. You are like everyone else on the forum an individual with your personal likes , dislikes and experiences. That is what you bring to the table. Other gamers have a myopic view (IMHO) of what constitutes role playing and want to put games into their individual categories for easy identification. I believe games are evolving beyond those simple categories. Cross pollination is happening. cRPGs will continue to change.

There is nothing wrong with playing yourself in a crpg. If you want to envision yourself as the paladin why not? Paladin is one of my favorite classes. If you want to set into the role of Hawke and roleplay his story why not?

What most gamers are concerned about is that they will not get the game they want or they feel that the majority of gamers want. I speak only for myself. I like DA2. In fact I liked all the Bioware games since Shattered Steel. I make no apologies for it. Neither should you.

Your experience with crpgs is not the same as everyone else's and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with you liking other companies games. You are an individual first and foremost.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 juin 2012 - 07:40 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Back when CRPGs were first around and a bit later, the majority of people playing them had PnP experience. I PnP'd from around age 12 till when I left Uni. I don't think that is the case anymore and I think the games reflect that. JRPGs which evolved outside of any PnP influence seem to be the new inspiration.

Which is a shame.  I continue to insist that any computer roleplaying game should, as its primary objective, attempt to recreate a tabletop roleplaying game experience, but without the need for other people.

There lies the problem. Many gamers now who play crpgs and other games did not grow up with the pnp experience. We who did expect the crpg experience to model the pnp experience. If you did not grow up with that experience your expectations are different.

A game can serve those other expectations without abandoning ours.  Many games have.  As Allan points out, he played many classic CRPGs without having any conception of how tabletop gaming worked (or even actively disliking tabletop gaming).

A game doesn't need to force any particular playstyle.

No it does not have to abandon our expectations but when some gamers expect voice protagonists or photo realistic graphics or more cinematics because of advances in technolgy then those expectations may clash.

[Dakota Strider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For an employee of Bioware, I would think this would have to be a pre-requisite.

If people are going to be pedantic about definitions, coupled with other people already scrutinizing other things that I say and what video games I'm supposed to like, then I'm already starting to feel more adversarial on these boards.

My point was that I don't think people need to even KNOW what "roleplaying" is in order to enjoy Baldur's Gate. Or KOTOR. Or Dragon Age. Heck, I'd even be willing to bet money that a significant majority of those that like those games have limited to no interest in even attempting to play a PnP game experience.

When I played my first CRPG, I had no idea what PnP was. I just know that I liked it. What I also know is that that one time I tried playing a PnP game, it was awfully run and soured me on the experience. It was something I only considered doing because I enjoyed CRPGs based on D&D so much (the Gold Box games in particular).


What I find most interesting is that, when comparing good PnP sessions (I sit in on the retellings with my team because they're damned entertaining), is that the "old school" RPG delivers very little of the experience provided in those retellings. Neither do the modern ones.


When I first played Ultima 6, it was a cool adventure with swords and sorcery. When I first played Eye of the Beholder (just the demo at the time!) it was cool playing around with the different characters running around the first two levels killing monsters and casting spells. I was hella confused why lower AC was somehow better, or even how the combat rules worked. But I didn't care, it was fun.

I dabbled a bit with FF6 and FF7, because they had fun stories and awesome characters. Ultima VII was effectively a "living world" with people running around on their own schedules. I was brutal at the game (needed a hint book to do anything productive), but it was fun. I loved it enough to ask for a gaming computer.

When I played Fallout, I basically created myself. "Roleplayers" have often told me that "I'm doing it wrong" by playing it this way. But it was fun. I loved how reactive the game was and it was the first game I'd played that seemed to properly account for such little nuances. This game (and Half-Life) turned me into a PC Gamer for life.

In Baldur's Gate I picked the Paladin because the idea of a magic casting warrior (I'm partial to warriors) was awesome. I rerolled until I was able to min/max my character, which was 18 in all stats except for intellect (which was 3). Because intellect was irrelevant for my character's power. I played it, and loved it (especially the MP). Unfortunately I never finished it because I had just borrowed a friend's DVD, but I did import that character into BG2 which was a fantastic game. I made my Paladin a Cavalier (since I hated switching to bows anyways). But all of my decisions revolved around "How can I make my character more powerful." I had no concept of what "roleplaying" was, and for me a roleplaying game was a game that had character progression (even mediocre character progression like martial classes had in AD&D). It didn't hurt that I was somewhat familiar with the AD&D ruleset.

When I first loaded up PST, it was a wall of text and too intimidating. I actually put it off and replayed BG2. It wasn't until I sat down and went "lets give this another try." It was the first game that really made me go "I like the characters in this game more than anything else about the game." It was the first game where I started to see appropriate reactivity to my alignment based upon my choices, which made me go "Hey, this is really cool" (I still save scummed because I saw myself as Lawful Good).

It wasn't until KOTOR (by this time I'm 22 years old and have been apparently playing RPGs wrong for the last 13 or so years) that I actually decided to go into the game with a player archetype that wasn't just myself, and (most importantly) decided that I was going to fully accept the consequences for all of my actions, regardless of what they were.[/] I did go into the game with an idea of being a "good guy soldier" that rationalizes the dark side use "for the greater good." Ultimately I ended with a fully evil character as the dark side consumed me, and I was like "You know, I found this even more fun. I'll continue to play games this way."


But given that I actually thought that "Dungeons and Dragons" was a computer game franchise growing up, it's a bit of a sore point when someone implies that I'm not qualified for my job because I evidently don't understand roleplaying and the fact that I even need to ask is now cause for concern.

If knowing how to roleplay is so vital to enjoying RPGs, how come I was able to do it for so long without even having an inkling of a clue what a PnP roleplaying session was? My first experience with PnP roleplaying came in late 1997. This was after I had played more than a handful of CRPGs. Since the session was unfun (I died 10 minutes in) I went home and played this new game, Fallout. It was significantly more enjoyable for me. I hated PnP gaming but loved CRPGs. If understanding "roleplaying" and knowing that PnP is where it's all that is a prerequisite for liking RPG video games, then I guess I really slipped through the cracks.

 
I think you are taking that statement a bit out of context.  I never said someone needed to play a pnp Role Playing Game to learn how to enjoy an RPG game.  I said that if you have doubts of what a Role Playing Game is, that you should try experiencing a pnp game that was run by an experienced DM.  Sorry you had a bad experience on your first one, that is why I stipulated that you have get a reference of who you play with.   And the reason I thought that it would make a great pre-requisite for Bioware employees to sample the genre, is to gain a better understanding of the gaming roots.  Not that there is a wrong way to role play.  What you described is the same stages that most pnp players go through.  IF you can locate good pnp players and GMs, you will usually have a good experience, and it can only be a positive when trying to understands what motivates your customers.  We can try all sorts of different ways to describe the experience to you, but nothing compares to actually doing it yourself. 

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 06 juin 2012 - 07:40 .

[KaiLyn]

I think at the heart of this thread is the definition of "Role-Playing" and how each of us goes about doing that. IMHO I also think that to accomplish the type of immersion that DA:O gave that DA2 did not requires a goal towards which feels it is important to work with a team of companions one can feel some interest in having around. The comment was made earlier that in DA2, you couldn't even talk to companions except at certain plot points - in certain cases, I only had conversations with certain companions because they WERE a plot point. I personally had a hard time feeling much attachment to any of them except Bethany (who I lost after Act I), Aveline, Varric, Sebastian (who really deserves help to finish his story - hint, hint) and, periodically, Fenris. I came to sort of admire Isabela for her straight-up pirate captain/wench morality, tolerated Anders and brought Merrill along in a couple places I was pretty sure Anders would not want to go at all - in other words, I tried to balance who I knew I was "working with" to maintain their cooperation but never felt the connection particularly.

DA:O was a way different feel - everyone was pretty much on the same page: Darkspawn need to go sooner rather than later AND they almost all came TO the Warden to help get that done (except Zevran, who just sort of came along because I let him). The companions were each interesting and seemed representative of the culture in which I found myself.

To me, Role-Playing is being engaged enough to feel that I can immerse myself in the effort and aims of the storyline, my companions and the environment. I think the technology has evolved to the point that that is the expectation whether it's by a game, a novel or a movie - while FPS's, strategy games and MMO's have their fan base and might be considered "role-playing" on a very long stretch of that definition, it isn't that sort of environment that I believe the fans of Dragon Age (Baldur's Gate, NWN, etc.) are looking to enter.

So, while BioWare seeks to define "role-playing" and "player agency" in the new technical environment, I sincerely hope they can keep the game immersion element in view. I also challenge them to keep the toolset part of the game because as of yesterday, new content for both DAO and DA2 were going up at DragonAge Nexus, which I sincerely believe is part of what defines role-playing and immersion for many fans of their games.

I hope I have not strayed too far afield from the topic but it seems to be where it is heading anyway.

Modifié par KaiLyn, 06 juin 2012 - 07:45 .

[AkiKishi]

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it does not have to abandon our expectations but when some gamers expect voice protagonists or photo realistic graphics or more cinematics because of advances in technolgy then those expectations may clash.

The problem with the arguement Sylivius is making is that it only applies to his game. I played IWD/2 to death crafting detailed backgrounds and interpersonal relationships, but again it only applied to my game, no one else who bought IWD/2 ever saw it, or was influenced by it.

I always prefered IWD over BG for that very reason.

As a developer Bioware can't and should not create games that require anything beyond that which is provided by the game. Where as Sylivius sees the blank character that does nothing as a canvas, average joe gamer sees it as lazy and inconsistant. While DAO may have gotten away with it, that was then.In light of Witcher2,Deus Ex,ME etc. Things have moved on.

A cinematic game requires a cinematic protagonist.

[nightscrawl]

Tirigon wrote...

@ nightscrawl:

If you dont want NPCs having the same repeated conversations every time you should want a big city.

My dream would be, at some distant time in the future, to visit an actual megacity with millions of inhabitants, where you dont face such problems on account of never seeing the same guy twice, unless he's something prominent like mayor / lord of the city.

That's not really accurate though. In a game setting you will always have certain things to do in a city: sell junk or craft items, turn in quests, talk to important people (not always quest related), and generally just go into common areas. in DA2 whether I chose to sell my junk in Hightown, Lowtown, or the Gallows there were always the same NPCs there having the same conversations.

Other than initial exploration and sight seeing, there is no reason to travel to certain areas because when you are in a city and not out doing whatever gamey things there are in the world, you usually have some task to do.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want to be able to visit an area for no reason of which the game is aware.

I want this too. However I think that with a really story driven game series like Dragon Age there needs to be some sort of a reason for them to spend the resources on a given area. Honestly, I think it would be helpful if important maps were just opened up more. You may have a really specific place to go on said map, but then you can certainly go and explore the rest if you felt like it.

I always tend to use this as an example, but the Wounded Coast is particularly bad. In all three acts combined there is some sort of encounter on every single curve of that path, which you are forced to stick to and is very constricted. I really enjoyed the atmosphere on this map, but I just wanted to be able to walk around more (the water and lapping waves on the rocks were particularly striking to me).

Dakota Strider wrote...

Perhaps I should start another thread with this subject, but it sort of fits here. I am thinking that DA needs to reduce the scale of everything visual, by at least 25%. The reason being is that the larger the characters are, the more room they take up on the screen, and the less room you have for the area. In older Bioware games, because the depiction of party members were so much smaller, it made the outdoor maps they travelled through seem like miles across. In the DA games, an outdoor map where the character fills about half the screen, it feels like an outdoor map may be a few hundred yards across, at the most.

Save the close-ups, full body shots for the cut scenes. But we would be able to have a chance for better exploration, and I think much better tactical combat, if we reduce the size of all elements within the screen.

Really, I think part of this would be mitigated if we had free camera zoom. Coming from World of Warcraft where I play with a camera that is probably zoomed out to about 50+ feet behind my character, loading up DAO for the first time was claustrophobic. I don't like the isometric camera, so I was forced to play farther in. DA2 didn't even have the iso camera option. When I'm playing WoW I change my camera angle constantly, and it can be strategically important in encounters to move the camera around to look at your environment.

But I imagine there is probably some technical limitation to having the camera zoom fixed in this way and drawing objects in the distance. For resource (computer resources) management there is even a slider in WoW's settings for View Distance (how far you can see) and Environmental Detail (how far you can see objects). The higher the sliders, the farther away you can see mountains and other such things. At the max distance they are just basic mountain-shaped triangles, past max distance they disappear from the horizon completely. Raising or lowering these levels has a significant impact of performance.

screenshot WoW view distance high
screenshot WoW view distance low

Modifié par nightscrawl, 07 juin 2012 - 12:14 .

[Unknown_Warrior]

@Allan Schumacher

You're not alone. I, too, play predominantly RPG's while I've never even played (A)D&D or PnP at all. I, too, usually create my characters as a representation of myself. I still find them immensely enjoyable, though.

[dracuella]

Realmzmaster wrote...
@Allan Schumacher
Having a background in PnP roleplaying systems is not a prerequisite for having fun with computer role playing games. Please do not feel adversarial. A lot of gamers on this forum (myself included) come from that background. Many tend to think that roleplaying games must mirrior or model the tabletop experience.

I do not. My definition of roleplaying is not that narrow. I am like you I want to have fun. Some gamers like you fell into crpgs with having any pnp experience. Nothing wrong with that.

The expectations are simply different. You are like everyone else on the forum an individual with your personal likes , dislikes and experiences. That is what you bring to the table. Other gamers have a myopic view (IMHO) of what constitutes role playing and want to put games into their individual categories for easy identification. I believe games are evolving beyond those simple categories. Cross pollination is happening. cRPGs will continue to change.

There is nothing wrong with playing yourself in a crpg. If you want to envision yourself as the paladin why not? Paladin is one of my favorite classes. If you want to set into the role of Hawke and roleplay his story why not?

What most gamers are concerned about is that they will not get the game they want or they feel that the majority of gamers want. I speak only for myself. I like DA2. In fact I liked all the Bioware games since Shattered Steel. I make no apologies for it. Neither should you.

This is my take on it also. I an one of the oldies who started out with pen and paper at least 25 years ago and I loved it to bits. But I have played CRPGS for almost as long and while I see the common denominators I do not expect a CRPG to be the digital version of a pen and paper. The computer media is simply too limited in that aspect. We cannot expect infinite dialogue possibilities with NPCs nor infinite outcomes to our actions; there is simply no way to implement that within a reasonable timeframe/budget. 
So what do I expect? The best possible usage of the time and money at the developers' disposal. I want the game to look appealing, the voice acting to be solid and the story to be believable. No matter if I pretend to be an unscrupulous templar or a no-nonsense mage, I want to be able to follow the line I chose for myself from the start. I want to feel that the reactions I get to my actions from NPCs and the game are plausible in the sense that NPCs don't suddenly change alignment or do something out of character unless I am able to convince them that doing so is not compromising their convictions. That's the sort of roleplaying I want. 

Oh and @Allan Schumacher, I do the same as you, I also play myself in games. It's always 'me' in the role that I'm playing (see what I did there?), my convictions, my chaotic good alignment. And that does not make it any less proper roleplaying.

Modifié par dracuella, 07 juin 2012 - 04:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Where as Sylivius sees the blank character that does nothing as a canvas, average joe gamer sees it as lazy and inconsistant.

That's BioWare's fault for creating those expectations in Joe Gamer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

nightscrawl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want to be able to visit an area for no reason of which the game is aware.

I want this too. However I think that with a really story driven game series like Dragon Age there needs to be some sort of a reason for them to spend the resources on a given area.

By all means, I'm perfectly happy for every area we visit to be plot relevant.  But I'd like to be able to visit it before it is plot relevant.

The game can't model the whole world, so being able to travel literally anyone I can imagine is an impossible goal.  But anywhere that exists in the game should be somewhere I can go, even if the game doesn't think I want to go there yet.

I always tend to use this as an example, but the Wounded Coast is particularly bad. In all three acts combined there is some sort of encounter on every single curve of that path, which you are forced to stick to and is very constricted. I really enjoyed the atmosphere on this map, but I just wanted to be able to walk around more (the water and lapping waves on the rocks were particularly striking to me).

I think we should have been able to visit and explore the Wounded Coast, or the Boneyard, or literally anywhere else that exists within the game, without having to wait for the game to tell us to go there.

Why can't we stumble upon that dragon infested mine without first being hired to investigate what's happening to the miners?  Why can't we find D'Arnise Hold without meeting Nalia first?

Generally speaking, BioWare's been pretty good about this.  BG and ME are the only games I can think of that include explorable areas that have no direct plot relevance at all, but NWN let you travel among the plot areas pretty much as you saw fit.  KotOR and DAO did this to a lesser extent, with KotOR forcing a visit to Dantooine before opening up the galaxy to exploration , and DAO forced a brief stop in Lothering but also didn't let you see any side-quest areas without first being told about them.  But to its credit, you could visit Denerim any time after Lothering, even though there was no plot-related reason to go there until fairly late in the game, and you could do the complete Sacred Ashes quest before ever being told you had to.

BG2 and DA2 were needlessly restrictive in this regard.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[Xewaka]

BobSmith101 wrote...
A cinematic game requires a cinematic protagonist.

I dislike this tendency in recent games of making me watch the game, rather than let me play it. It is irritating.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 juin 2012 - 06:21 .

[dracuella]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Where as Sylivius sees the blank character that does nothing as a canvas, average joe gamer sees it as lazy and inconsistant.

That's BioWare's fault for creating those expectations in Joe Gamer.

It is hardly fair or justified to put the blame for gamer expectations on Bioware. Yes, they have chosen character creation which involves a background but it's not as if they're forcing it down our throats, saying it's the only way. Besides, last I checked background stories were around even before there was Bioware. 

And to BobSmith101, while I agree some might see an inconsistency in it or even laziness, I doubt it will be the main body of gamers, the, as you put it, average joe gamer. Some will rave and rant as some always do but I'm confident most of us do what we did with DA2, wonder why it's not like DAO, try it out and simply decide it's just different from the predecesser. 

[Allan Schumacher]

And to BobSmith101, while I agree some might see an inconsistency in it or even laziness, I doubt it will be the main body of gamers, the, as you put it, average joe gamer. Some will rave and rant as some always do but I'm confident most of us do what we did with DA2, wonder why it's not like DAO, try it out and simply decide it's just different from the predecesser.

I haven't played Skyrim but IIRC Morrowind and Oblivion both have pretty open backgrounds. Skyrim in particular is quite popular. At the same time though a Bethesda game does differ from a BioWare game.

I actually haven't played Skyrim because after I felt I wasted about 40 hours of my life on Oblivion I was super hesitant to try it out.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

The only good point of multiplayer PnP was interacting with other characters and making a story. That's the reason you play multiplayer PnP... otherwise you're just rolling dice and moving bottle caps around until one has more hits left than the rest. Modern RPGs understand this, and replace the other players with characters and story.

I grew up with PnP games... but it was never the dice and character sheets that mattered. It was the dialogue with other players and the character story that mattered. Modern RPGs are finally getting to the point where the characters are really coming alive and the boring bottle caps and dice aspect of RPGs can be left behind. It's not that most people have the wrong expections... it's that the people who really enjoyed the dice and bottle caps are getting angry that we just do not need that stuff in RPGs anymore.

Modern RPGs are more like what people got into PnP for in the first place. Modern RPGs are more like classic RPGs than they ever have been before.