764 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Irony of that statement is that FFXIII-2 has more endings and choice and consquence than DA2.

They aren't really endings. In fact, the most interesting part is it's basically the game's way of saying you DON'T have choice: If you take paths other than the prescribed ones, they end in Noel and Serah being trapped on the Archylte Steppe, being trapped in another dimension, turning into flans...basically the game's saying you don't have choice. It's funny.

I see it more like PST where you have the "true" ending and you also have other endings. True, normal , bad etc. is a staple JRPG thing.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[AkiKishi]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...
To be fair, I think DA2's problems came from plain bad game design, not going in the wrong direction entirely. The main issues with it (endless recycling, boring environments, an unfocused story, and boring characters) are better chalked up to either plain incompetance or a rushed dev schedule, neither of which can be blamed on CoD.

Increased speed and auto attack being a button mashing thing were arcade elements for people who found DA too slow and boring. DA's speed on the other hand was much better for tactical management without needing to pause every couple of seconds.

[batlin]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...
To be fair, I think DA2's problems came from plain bad game design, not going in the wrong direction entirely. The main issues with it (endless recycling, boring environments, an unfocused story, and boring characters) are better chalked up to either plain incompetance or a rushed dev schedule, neither of which can be blamed on CoD.

Combat is where I saw the most influence from CoD. It's like the devs looked at DA:O and thought "the caffiene-riddled prepubescent kids who make up most of the CoD consumer base aren't going to want a tactical menu or an isometric view...we better get rid of the camera controls and make the tactical menu useless so they don't feel stupid when all they do is mash the A button when they play."

Don't get me wrong, they made combat better in that you no longer need to be the EXACT correct distance away from an enemy in order to hit them, but one step forward, two steps back.

Modifié par batlin, 06 juin 2012 - 07:54 .

[ElitePinecone]

BobSmith101 wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

In addition, DA as a brand has its own strengths (tactical combat, gripping plot, etc.) which Skyrim can't match. If Bioware start ignoring DA's strengths and start drawing from Skyrim, we'll end up with a rubbish version of a Bethesda game, rather than a great bioware game. The two companies have different code bases, employees, etc, and so have their own niches. Bioware should play to its strengths, rather than aping the latest hot selling RPG. 

Pretty much yes. Like people here are always going on about Witcher making you be a straight white guy. That really never hurt their sales at all. Witcher2 has a much better gaming rep because it stayed true to itself. Sure some people don't like it,because it's dark and viloent and whatnot. But plenty of people do because it's not trying to to be PG13.

Just FYI CDPRs next game is based on CyberPunk 2020.

But conversely, the fact that DA allows (for the most part) players to explicitly play as either gender, and with racial/sexuality options that most games don't go anywhere near, is probably a drawcard for another audience segment. It certainly wouldn't hurt sales.  

And if I had to nominate DA's strengths, it would be its regard for both excellent character interactions and wider roleplaying elements for players that deliberately subvert the "white straight guy" protagonist archetype. It's even become what Bioware are 'known for', industry-wise, and I think that's awesome. 

[batlin]

ElitePinecone wrote...

But conversely, the fact that DA allows (for the most part) players to explicitly play as either gender, and with racial/sexuality options that most games don't go anywhere near, is probably a drawcard for another audience segment. It certainly wouldn't hurt sales.  

And if I had to nominate DA's strengths, it would be its regard for both excellent character interactions and wider roleplaying elements for players that deliberately subvert the "white straight guy" protagonist archetype. It's even become what Bioware are 'known for', industry-wise, and I think that's awesome.

I dunno, even Bioware's dialogue has taken a turn for the worst lately

[batlin]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Why do you feel the need to make comments like this? I know engineers, someone who's going to be a doctor who enjoy Call of Duty. Such generalizations help nothing and no one.

I personally don't play it, and never will, but that doesn't mean we need to make comments like that.

I said most of CoD's comsumer base. Most.

Christ, you can't even engage in a little bit of hyperbole around here without getting called on it...

Modifié par batlin, 06 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[ObserverStatus]

Dakota Strider wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Nah. My Little Pony. That's where the Eluvian leads.

Hmm. Fluttershy vs the archdemon.

It is a sad commentary that anyone that is in this forum would even know the names of a Little Pony ((I am assuming that is a name of a pony, before now, I had assumed it was just called My Little Pony)).

He was referencing S1E7, "Dragonshy". In that one, Fluttershy convinces a dragon who is sleeping in a cave on a mountain above Ponyville to go away because the smoke from its snoring exceeded the amount of air pollution allowed by Equestrian law, and if it had allowed it to remain, it would have slept in that spot for 100 years, blocking out Celestia's sun behind an endless cloud of smoke.  Twilight Sparkle learned to never lose faith in her friends, who can be an amazing source of strength, and help her overcome even her greatest fears.

Modifié par bobobo878, 06 juin 2012 - 08:12 .

[batlin]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Hyperbole doesn't help anyone's point.

Ok, here's the unhyperbole'd version:

They dumbed down the combat so people who aren't used to slow methodical gameplay wouldn't get turned off.

Happy? Sad? Angry? Afraid?

[AkiKishi]

ElitePinecone wrote...

But conversely, the fact that DA allows (for the most part) players to explicitly play as either gender, and with racial/sexuality options that most games don't go anywhere near, is probably a drawcard for another audience segment. It certainly wouldn't hurt sales.  

And if I had to nominate DA's strengths, it would be its regard for both excellent character interactions and wider roleplaying elements for players that deliberately subvert the "white straight guy" protagonist archetype. It's even become what Bioware are 'known for', industry-wise, and I think that's awesome. 

In the case of DA2 I would say it did. DA2 was caught in the middle ground of not being as pre-generated (and thus benificial to the story) as Geralt or as open as DAO. While at the same time leaving you completely railroaded and at the mercy of the story like  some JRPGs. All in all an identity crisis on all fronts.

Subverting something just because you can is not really good for the game. Witcher2 showed that.

[AkiKishi]

batlin wrote...

I dunno, even Bioware's dialogue has taken a turn for the worst lately

The first one is not a Bioware game anyway. Bioware games have never been like that.

[Allan Schumacher]

What people want in an RPG isn't an accurate approximation of life (like Heavy Rain, god forbid), what they want is player agency. That is, the ability to go about one's business unhindered by a railroaded plot.

This can't be the case with RPG players, otherwise some other group of non-RPG fans is what made games like Baldur's Gate successful. Neither Baldur's Gate game is particularly strong in player agency, while games such as Alpha Protocol or even Fallout were no where near the commercial success, in spite of having significantly improved player agency (and the reactivity to illustrate it.

The entire grassroots movement of RPGs don't adhere to such strict definitions.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What people want in an RPG isn't an accurate approximation of life (like Heavy Rain, god forbid), what they want is player agency. That is, the ability to go about one's business unhindered by a railroaded plot.

This can't be the case with RPG players, otherwise some other group of non-RPG fans is what made games like Baldur's Gate successful. Neither Baldur's Gate game is particularly strong in player agency, while games such as Alpha Protocol or even Fallout were no where near the commercial success, in spite of having significantly improved player agency (and the reactivity to illustrate it.

The entire grassroots movement of RPGs don't adhere to such strict definitions.

There is no one factor.

PST is a really excelllent game (saw it more of a mystery novel than an RPG though) but it sold very badly. Probably because it was weird and had some weird looking thing on the cover.

Alpha Protocol had horrible controls and some really questionable mechanics and boss fights.

Old Fallout vs New Fallout, that's a tough one. I'm firmly on the New Vegas side of things. As much as I liked Fallout in the day I don't think it aged all that well.


DA2 falls into a similiar bracket. It's a game you might like in spite of things. But there is a lot you need to not care about/overlook.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 juin 2012 - 09:25 .

[ElitePinecone]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

But conversely, the fact that DA allows (for the most part) players to explicitly play as either gender, and with racial/sexuality options that most games don't go anywhere near, is probably a drawcard for another audience segment. It certainly wouldn't hurt sales.  

And if I had to nominate DA's strengths, it would be its regard for both excellent character interactions and wider roleplaying elements for players that deliberately subvert the "white straight guy" protagonist archetype. It's even become what Bioware are 'known for', industry-wise, and I think that's awesome. 

In the case of DA2 I would say it did. DA2 was caught in the middle ground of not being as pre-generated (and thus benificial to the story) as Geralt or as open as DAO. While at the same time leaving you completely railroaded and at the mercy of the story like  some JRPGs. All in all an identity crisis on all fronts.

Subverting something just because you can is not really good for the game. Witcher2 showed that.

Hmm, I think there's a difference between player agency and deciding the nature of the protagonist, my point above was that the fact that the Warden or Hawke have various gender/racial/sexuality options in contrast to the average game with a defined protagonist means it's relatively more attractive to people who aren't catered for by the majority of works in the industry (or even people who just enjoy a truckload of options). In that respect Bioware's games are appealing if people are looking for customisable protagonists. And while DA2 certainly had fewer options or origins compared to the first game, it's still far more engaging in terms of protagonist interactivity than, say, TW2.

In any respect, without a bunch of market research and customer feedback I don't think you can say with any certainty the customisability (or lack thereof) of the protagonist directly affected DA2's sales - Bioware possibly has a clearer picture if they've tried to work out what happened with the fan reaction. 

[AkiKishi]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Hmm, I think there's a difference between player agency and deciding the nature of the protagonist, my point above was that the fact that the Warden or Hawke have various gender/racial/sexuality options in contrast to the average game with a defined protagonist means it's relatively more attractive to people who aren't catered for by the majority of works in the industry (or even people who just enjoy a truckload of options). In that respect Bioware's games are appealing if people are looking for customisable protagonists. And while DA2 certainly had fewer options or origins compared to the first game, it's still far more engaging in terms of protagonist interactivity than, say, TW2.

In any respect, without a bunch of market research and customer feedback I don't think you can say with any certainty the customisability (or lack thereof) of the protagonist directly affected DA2's sales - Bioware possibly has a clearer picture if they've tried to work out what happened with the fan reaction. 

In Witcher2 you have a ridiculous ammount of player agency, to the point of something in act 1 leading to a different game. Ending also changes depending on what you choose. What you don't get is any say in who the character is, aside from being able to change the hairstyle. Same could be said of Deus Ex another game with a fixed protagonist and a fixed hairstyle

Don't really see the point of customisable protagonists if the effect is negligible anyway. Unless you must walk around the game world in a particular skin , it's meaningless.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 juin 2012 - 10:42 .

[batlin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The first one is not a Bioware game anyway. Bioware games have never been like that.

I am pretty damn certain that screenshot is Baldur's Gate 2...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This can't be the case with RPG players, otherwise some other group of non-RPG fans is what made games like Baldur's Gate successful. Neither Baldur's Gate game is particularly strong in player agency, while games such as Alpha Protocol or even Fallout were no where near the commercial success, in spite of having significantly improved player agency (and the reactivity to illustrate it.

The entire grassroots movement of RPGs don't adhere to such strict definitions.

"Player agency" isn't what I meant. I don't know why I said that, but what I described was player expression. In a game like Baldur's Gate there was rarely a conversation that you could not resolve exactly the way you wanted to, because the number of options were so great. Same with the freedom in how you could complete quests, how you handle your relationships with your companions, how it never forced you into inaction, etc etc etc.

[AkiKishi]

batlin wrote...

I am pretty damn certain that screenshot is Baldur's Gate 2...

Stuck it in paint and enlarged it. It's a bunch of TNO's from the end of PST.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 juin 2012 - 10:56 .

[batlin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

batlin wrote...

I am pretty damn certain that screenshot is Baldur's Gate 2...

Stuck it in paint and enlarged it. It's a bunch of TNO's from the end of PST.

My mistake then. Here's a screencap of Baldur's Gate 2 dialogue:

[AkiKishi]

batlin wrote...

My mistake then. Here's a screencap of Baldur's Gate 2 dialogue:

One thing that really suprised me about Witcher2 was getting to the end and having around 16 conversation options. The one I really wanted was missing , but still can't win 'em all.

If you boil down that list, the outcomes will be limited. But it's still nice to have them.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 juin 2012 - 11:16 .

[batlin]

BobSmith101 wrote...
One thing that really suprised me about Witcher2 was getting to the end and having arount 16 conversation options. The one I really wanted was missing , but still can't win 'em all.

If you boil down that list, the outcomes will be limited. But it's still nice to have them.

Of course there won't always be the option you want, but compared to how DA2 saddles you with limited options....



And it's true enough that there isn't a unique response to each of those 20 dialogue options, but again, it comes down to player expression. The kind of person who threatens someone with subtle language isn't the same person who threatens someone by holding a knife to their balls.

Modifié par batlin, 06 juin 2012 - 11:31 .

[bEVEsthda]

There's nothing wrong with attempting to "appeal to a wider audience".

But there can be plenty of things very wrong with things you do, in order to do that.

First of all, it seems obvious that one shouldn't change the kind of game one makes, to something else. Yet this was done. In every way. Gameplay. Rewards of game. Mood and style.

Secondly, it also seems obvious that one shouldn't aim for a different audience. Yet this was done.  It should be about expanding the audience one already has, by making others discover, convincing them with the sheer quality of content. If you just throw away your market, what have you gained? Nothing, it's always a loss.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 juin 2012 - 11:40 .

[ElitePinecone]

batlin wrote...

"Player agency" isn't what I meant. I don't know why I said that, but what I described was player expression. In a game like Baldur's Gate there was rarely a conversation that you could not resolve exactly the way you wanted to, because the number of options were so great. Same with the freedom in how you could complete quests, how you handle your relationships with your companions, how it never forced you into inaction, etc etc etc.

It's fine to wax nostalgic about older RPGs but you can't compare the storytelling equally when modern games demand such intensive investment of resources in dialogue budgets, cinematics, animation, etc. 

Like devs have often said: customers on forums can write pie-in-the-sky rants about how there should be hundreds of options in every situation with customisable cutscenes and a new graphics engine and a pony, and that's fine because we're not expected to understand the realities of limited budgets and just how difficult it is to actually make a game.

(Although I do think devs should talk more about budgetary/time constraints, if only because fans with unconstrained expectations tend to get crushingly disappointed.)

But expecting complete freedom to compete quests the way you want *and* handle companion relationships in a dozen ways *and* have agency in every situation *and* have masses of options in persuading/intimidating/coercing/interacting with people is totally unrealistic, even naive. It's fine for games where dialogue is largely text, but every separate line requires paying the voice actors more, coding more plot tags, recording more animations, perhaps making more cutscenes, etc. Origins could offer six or eight responses per conversation choice because the Warden never said anything. Doing the same for Hawke would require a huge dialogue budget. 

Could games like DA2 do it better? Certainly. I hope they do, in the future. But developers only have a certain amount of zots, and making modern games uses so many more of them than they did ten years ago. People have suggested a return to a silent DAO-style protagonist, and Bioware have pretty firmly said that they aren't going to do it because it fits their storytelling to have the PC with a voice.