764 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

In fact, the way Silvius and allied posters talk almost makes it seem like a malleable protagonist is more important that the story. 

It is.  A malleable protagonist is vastly more important than the story.

 For me the ability to slip into the role (whether a created character or not) is more important.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But where there is complexity, that complexity should be documented. DA2 made no effort at all to explain how its mechanics worked (DAO also was porrly documented, but the toolset made it easy for us to go find the relevant details ourselves).

If an explanation is necessary it should be in the documentation or explained in a tutorial or codex on gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But where there is complexity, that complexity should be documented. DA2 made no effort at all to explain how its mechanics worked (DAO also was porrly documented, but the toolset made it easy for us to go find the relevant details ourselves).

If an explanation is necessary it should be in the documentation or explained in a tutorial or codex on gameplay.

Even if it isn't necessary, it should still be available.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

In fact, the way Silvius and allied posters talk almost makes it seem like a malleable protagonist is more important that the story. 

It is.  A malleable protagonist is vastly more important than the story.

 For me the ability to slip into the role (whether a created character or not) is more important.

So far, my ability to slip into a role is determined by how malleable the protagonist is.  If the protagonist isn't malleable, then it would need to be exhaustively documented for me to know him well enough in order to play him with any confidence.

And malleability allows me to construct a variety of different protagonists and compare them.  A rigid protagonist denies me that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[AkiKishi]

Technology and tastes change over time. TES is a really good reflection of that.

[Jerrybnsn]

Those Triple AAA games that sell +10 million didn't just start that way on their first release. There is a lot to be said about building up a fan base once you released a succesful game and the CoD, TES, and ME series have done just that by sticky true to their formula. So what happened to the DA series that they decided to retool their most succesful game to that date? They need to get back to the Origins formula just to be able to come close to selling as much as Origins. I can't see them selling more than Origins because they did lose a lot of their fanbase from the DA2 game. But the DA series has to learn to walk again.

[Fast Jimmy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Technology and tastes change over time. TES is a really good reflection of that.

...huh? TES games have no cinematics, no cutscenes, no voiced main characters, no scripted animations...


...while I don't want to downplay their mechanics or technology, their underlying "tastes" have been running the same since Morrowind (2002), or agurably even Arena (1994).

Meanwhile, Bioware thinks their gamers'  tastes had shifted dramatically in the 16 months between DA:O and DA2 was released?

Please. They were going for the non-RPG gamer cash in. And they were not successful.

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Technology and tastes change over time. TES is a really good reflection of that.

...huh? TES games have no cinematics, no cutscenes, no voiced main characters, no scripted animations...


...while I don't want to downplay their mechanics or technology, their underlying "tastes" have been running the same since Morrowind (2002), or agurably even Arena (1994).

Meanwhile, Bioware thinks their gamers'  tastes had shifted dramatically in the 16 months between DA:O and DA2 was released?

Please. They were going for the non-RPG gamer cash in. And they were not successful.

That was kind of the point. They have stayed with current technology so they can make games that look breathtaking. Trimmed the fat here and there without making anything feel too different game by game so the game still appeals to casual gamers without looking overly unfriendly and clunky.

DA2 was a quick cash grab cashing in on the DA name. I think everyone knows that.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

AH! Your comment was an example of this mysterious "sarcasm" I was told about once. Intriguing.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 juin 2012 - 10:57 .

[cJohnOne]

I think story is more important then that. It's the reason to get a new game. Otherwise you'd have the same game over and over.

[Jerrybnsn]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think story is more important then that. It's the reason to get a new game. Otherwise you'd have the same game over and over.

As long as story doesn't take precedence over actually playing a game.  Look at L.A. Noire which was a stunning game visually and had an incredible, rich story.  Problem was there wasn't much of a game at all to it.  DA2 fell into this mistake by getting rid of race selection in order to tell a deeper story.  So gameplay suffers for the sake of storyline.

[Pasquale1234]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think story is more important then that. It's the reason to get a new game. Otherwise you'd have the same game over and over.

Not to deny the importance of story, but...

New NPC characters and locations to explore are also reasons for a new game.

It seems to me that this focus on story has morphed into "telling a specific story in a specific way", which is contributing to this movement toward the more cinematic, less player agency sort of approach we got with DA2.

If I can't really influence the progression of the story, I'd rather watch a movie.

[Pasquale1234]

Realmzmaster wrote...

 For me the ability to slip into the role (whether a created character or not) is more important.

That is the key for me in my enjoyment of an RPG, and the primary reason why I found DA2 endlessly frustrating.  I never really knew what Hawke would say or do.  Anytime I thought I was starting to understand the character, some other hidden system - like the "predominant tone changes what Hawke will say at this point" system - would kick in and once again break my character concept.

It is much, much easier (imho) to role-play a more malleable character when you are provided with greater latitude in the ways the character can respond to the world.

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
Isn't it the combo of the things you mention here? A good story with new NPC's, locations and the possibility to influence the way the story unfolds?

Sounds like a good RPG to me .

Works for me - although I also need to feel that I can role-play the character.  In order for that to happen, I need to know what the character will say and do, and never be surprised by their behaviors.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 29 juin 2012 - 02:06 .

[AkiKishi]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think story is more important then that. It's the reason to get a new game. Otherwise you'd have the same game over and over.

Without a story you are just grinding.

[Pasquale1234]

So I've heard - which is why I don't really expect that I will be continuing to invest in this franchise.

I still pop in from time to time, though, because I enjoy some of the thoughtful conversations going on.

[Vormaerin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

DA2 fell into this mistake by getting rid of race selection in order to tell a deeper story.  So gameplay suffers for the sake of storyline.

No, gameplay and story suffered for lack of development time and resources.   You keep acting like the game failed because it had a fixed PC, but there is no evidence of that.    KOTOR had a fixed PC.  Jade Empire had an effectively fixed PC.  Mass Effect had a fixed PC.    All of those games were considered successful.

The evidence is that DA2 was less successful than DAO because it wasn't polished.  The story was less developed.  The areas were more obviously reused. The wave based combat was not as well executed as it could have been.

[Pasquale1234]

Vormaerin wrote...

No, gameplay and story suffered for lack of development time and resources.   You keep acting like the game failed because it had a fixed PC, but there is no evidence of that.    KOTOR had a fixed PC.  Jade Empire had an effectively fixed PC.  Mass Effect had a fixed PC.    All of those games were considered successful.

The evidence is that DA2 was less successful than DAO because it wasn't polished.  The story was less developed.  The areas were more obviously reused. The wave based combat was not as well executed as it could have been.

Any chance you might be able to somehow justify or demonstrate your assertions?

A LOT of DAO fans reported that they would not be purchasing DA2 because they did not like the changes they saw in the demo.  There were many, many changes made in overall gameplay style - changes that were conscious, intentional design choices that had absolutely nothing to do with lack of time or resources.  If anything, those changes created even greater stress on resource limitations than simply keeping the same gameplay functionality.

[Realmzmaster]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

 For me the ability to slip into the role (whether a created character or not) is more important.

That is the key for me in my enjoyment of an RPG, and the primary reason why I found DA2 endlessly frustrating.  I never really knew what Hawke would say or do.  Anytime I thought I was starting to understand the character, some other hidden system - like the "predominant tone changes what Hawke will say at this point" system - would kick in and once again break my character concept.

It is much, much easier (imho) to role-play a more malleable character when you are provided with greater latitude in the ways the character can respond to the world.

I guess that is where we differ I have no problem not knowing exactly what is going to be said. The paraphasing was enough for me to know the general direction the response would take. 

[freche]

wsandista wrote...
Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.

Since Fallout 3 Bethesda has continued to do mainstream games, Skyrim is not niche and they have definitly started to appeal towards a bigger audience. What keeps and draws their steady audience is their huge modding community (and this community is what makes bethesda able to release unfinished 2nd rate games, but that is another topic) that allow their games to be interesting long enough for new people to find interest in their games.

[Allan Schumacher]

Bethesda games are still ridiculously successful on console platforms too though, so the modding tools can't be the only reason for their large success.

[Cimeas]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bethesda games are still ridiculously successful on console platforms too though, so the modding tools can't be the only reason for their large success.

Skyrim sold 12 million copies.   Why?  
Their advertising campaign.

Back home from College last Winter I head my younger brother and his friends (They must be 14/15), who usually only ever play Call of Duty or casual games on their iphones, talking about Skyrim.   At first I couldn't believe my ears, somehow these people, used to 5 hour single player campaigns in which the only choice is whether to swap weapons with someone you have just killed, were discussing a huge, complex, open-world roleplaying game!

Out of interest I asked them if they'd ever heard of Dragon Age or Mass Effect.  A few said they'd heard of Mass Effect, but they didn't know exactly what it was, and no-one had heard of Dragon Age.   So I began wondering, what did Skyrim do right?  

It must be it's advertising.  A dark, brooding figure on a rocky crag, a live action trailer with a dragon, only a few words about an amazing 'cinematic' adventure in a 'huge open world'.   Not a gameplay trailer in sight, and to see one you'd have to go to affiliate sites specifically for gaming fans like IGN or Gamespot.    Skyrim succeeded because the hype of hardcore gamers caught on to the general public, and the advertising campaign was very vague in showing what the game was about. 

Whereas Dragon Age would release a demo, show gameplay footage, hold panels at conventions, there were probably 15 minutes of gameplay videos released before launch for Skyrim.  And the hype caught on, infectiously, until people who weren't playing were 'missing out', much like those not going to the most awesome-est *ever* party on campus.

-John

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bethesda games are still ridiculously successful on console platforms too though, so the modding tools can't be the only reason for their large success.

Yes but the modding is one reason it's still huge on PC.

I wish they had market research to prove modding increases sales on your game because it really does. Especially when you have a massive mod community like Elder Scrolls. It doesn't matter how mainstream Skyrim is, PC players know they can fix any "flaw" they see in a Bethesda game. That's why it still sells millions on PC. They don't turn a cold shoulder to their PC players.

I mean, just recently, the DayZ mod that came out for Arma 2. it increased sales of that game so much, Steam increased the price of the game. It was sitting in their top 5 sold and it's a 3-4 year old game...

I wish more publisher/devs paid attention to these type of things...

And yes, you're right Alan. They still do a lot right and modding can't be the sole purpose. That's why it's popular on all platforms.

Modifié par deuce985, 29 juin 2012 - 11:10 .