764 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

This.
For me it seems that of late the differentiation between RPG's in general is getting smaller in every sense. I like the fact, that if I buy a game, it will answer to the expectations I have from it due to a previous game I played from that franchise. If it derailes from that to much I will be dissapointed.

TES I like; Skyrim wasn't as good for me as Morrowind.
FF I like; hated FFXIII

Completely different RPG genres but to give examples for going in different directions with a franchise. I understand that developpers think 'you win some you loose some'. But making a game that is different then a lot of others out there and sticking to that in most areas could have the same effect imho. True to the roots so to speak. Not making it a combination of styles as in 'more action less RP'.

That's what got me into CoD. Im by no means a hard core CoD player. But I do enjoy it.

FF is a tough one because it's constantly changing I've learned no to have expectations. That said I did not like XIII either, but really liked XIII-2 , go figure.

[AkiKishi]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

@ BobSmith101

Heard that FFXIII-2 made up for some. Still have to buy and try it though.....
FF changed but overall it was about the MC and companions, for me that lacked in FFXIII sooo much. A lot of action and (have to admitt great) cinematics but shallow gameplay overall.

Liked Vanille,Lightning,Fang. Did not care much for any of the others. Wanted to push Hope off a cliff.

The way Serah and Noel play off each other in FFXIII-2 and being able to "pokemon" your third party member did it for me I think.

Underneath the hood though it's still ATB (but without pausing on orders) which just goes to show how much ramping up the speed can make something feel very different. I found myself playing for stars rather than enjoying the combat system. Although I did used to spend like 2 hours trying to pick pocket rares while keeping everyone upright in the earlier FF's (that one was the fairy flute in FFIX). I was also much more used to finishing well rather than finishing fast.

[nightcobra]

as for FF, i greatly enjoyed FF10's battle system, true it wasn't realtime but it felt like sort of playing chess with the way you can see everyone's turn and play accordingly, i made it a lot more fun for myself by following this rule during the game "win the battle while making sure that all party members use a turn but only one turn" (except for bosses)

[Sacred_Fantasy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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. 

This is the reason why I feel RPG never elvove but devolve . Back then in 1990s I only had 486 DX2 PC to display 640x480 resolution. Graphic was awful and blocky. But RPG element was rich and deep, It's easy to get lost in the imagination. The leveling was so fun and addictive. Every single point invested in a stat greatly affected gameplay and it showed. You're can felt that you're progressively stronger  You can create different characters based on stats alone and they're all played out differently regardless of character's class.. It was easy to make mistake with stat and you could felt the effect as well. Everytime you level up there was always something to look forward. New monster, new area etc.. There was so much freedom to interact, questing and did all other things on your initiation as an adventurer - which was mostly gone nowdays. It's still amaze me how the older RPGs could accomplish a lot of things even with very limited technology. 

Nowday, we have better technolgy but a lot of thing is removed . Leveling feel nothing except to unlock talent and specialization but the monsters remain the same and there isn't much difference whether you are leveling or not. There isn't much to build with stat because of equipment requirement and lack of points to distribute in other stat. The graphic is nice and fine but the depth of roleplaying has gone due to a lot of factors that remove or seperate player from their character and as result players are no longer feel living in the world as an adventurer, making choices and shaping their story.  During the past years we move forward with our graphic and visual presentation but move backward with RPG. We decorate the exterior shop with beautiful items but leave the interior empty. 

That's what RPG today. A devolution of it's former glory.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[AkiKishi]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

This is the reason why I feel RPG never elvove but devolve . Back then in 1990s I only had 486 DX2 PC to display 640x480 resolution. Graphic was awful and blocky. But RPG element was rich and deep, It's easy to get lost in the imagination. The leveling was so fun and addictive. Every single point invested in a stat greatly affected gameplay and it showed. You're can felt that you're progressively stronger  You can create different characters based on stats alone and they're all played out differently regardless of character's class.. It was easy to make mistake with stat and you could felt the effect as well. Everytime you level up there was always something to look forward. New monster, new area etc.. There was so much freedom to interact, questing and did all other things on your initiation as an adventurer - which was mostly gone nowdays. It's still amaze me how the older RPGs could accomplish a lot of things even with very limited technology. 

Nowday, we have better technolgy but a lot of thing is removed . Leveling feel nothing except to unlock talent and specialization but the monsters remain the same and there isn't much difference whether you are leveling or not. There isn't much to build with stat because of equipment requirement and lack of points to distribute in other stat. The graphic is nice and fine but the depth of roleplaying has gone due to a lot of factors that remove or seperate player from their character and as result players are no longer feel living in the world as an adventurer, making choices and shaping their story.  During the past years we move forward with our graphic and visual presentation but move backward with RPG. We decorate the exterior shop with beautiful items but leave the interior empty. 

That's what RPG today. A devolution of it's former glory.

I think there is a good deal of nostalgia there. What I can add is that games were much less concerned with hand holding than they are today. Bards Tale (original) not only did you have perma death, but you also had plenty of things that could inflict it without being able to do much about it.
Likewise your progress was measured by your level, gaining levels let you delve deeper, something that scaling does do away with completely.

I think it's more of a case of RPG fatigue rather than games of the past being better as such. I enjoyed playing the SSI AD&D games (years after release got hold of an Amiga) excellent tactics, but really nothing to write home about as RPGs.

[Jerrybnsn]

batlin wrote...

You guys know what another term for "hardcore fans" is? "Best customers".

EA tried this same bulls*** of attracting new customers in lieu of doing right by their best customers with the Ultima franchise. Hey Bioware, how many games has Origin Studios made lately?

who is Origin Studios?  Where are they based out of?

[jbrand2002uk]

batlin wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

eh, I stand corrected. Bob is right, DA should focus on developing its own brand and cultivating its own audience, rather than aping other popular games like COD or Skyrim. There are tons of knockoff shooters crowding the shelves, but only a few great story driven RPGs.

What disturbs me more than Bioware citing CoD as an influence for DA2 is that there's at least one person at Bioware who thinks CoD is an RPG, simply because it involves putting experience points into skills.

What disturbs me is that for someone who calls themself an RPG player you have no understanding of what the term Role Playing Game means to quote wikipedia:

A role-playing game (RPG[/b] and sometimes roleplaying game[/b][/b][1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines 

By this very definition COD is a role playing game because you play a role in a fictional setting unless of course your claiming that in real life you are Captain Soap Mctavish of the SAS

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

batlin wrote...

You guys know what another term for "hardcore fans" is? "Best customers".

EA tried this same bulls*** of attracting new customers in lieu of doing right by their best customers with the Ultima franchise. Hey Bioware, how many games has Origin Studios made lately?

who is Origin Studios?  Where are they based out of?

Same place as WestWood.

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

batlin wrote...

You guys know what another term for "hardcore fans" is? "Best customers".

EA tried this same bulls*** of attracting new customers in lieu of doing right by their best customers with the Ultima franchise. Hey Bioware, how many games has Origin Studios made lately?

who is Origin Studios?  Where are they based out of?

Same place as WestWood.

Is Westwood another EA purchased studio or a city?

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

batlin wrote...

You guys know what another term for "hardcore fans" is? "Best customers".

EA tried this same bulls*** of attracting new customers in lieu of doing right by their best customers with the Ultima franchise. Hey Bioware, how many games has Origin Studios made lately?

who is Origin Studios?  Where are they based out of?

Same place as WestWood.

Is Westwood another EA purchased studio or a city?

The former.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Bards Tale (original) not only did you have perma death, but you also had plenty of things that could inflict it without being able to do much about it.

Bards Tale is one of my most favorite classic RPG. It's incorporate strategy on world scale, tactical on battefield and empire building in one. I just love the aspect of empire building, recruiting and leveling the champions. It's so addictive I've played for 3 years and never get bored in every single playthroughs. I lost counts how many times I replay it again and again, ( Because I'm a hardcore strategy player.)   LOL.

Ah so much nostalgia.  :happy:

Hmm.. I haven't played any latest AD&D lately. I kinda miss it. 

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

batlin wrote...

 Hey Bioware, how many games has Origin Studios made lately?

who is Origin Studios?  Where are they based out of?

Same place as WestWood.

Is Westwood another EA purchased studio or a city?

The former.

You're making me google things.  Thanks.  Anyway, it is disturbing because both Origins and Westwood studios were RPG makers and both went under soon after purchase.  Do you think Bioware is headed for the same fate?  It's not exactly the same considering Bioware really doesn't make RPGs anymore.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

"A role-playing game (RPG[/b] and sometimes roleplaying game[/b][/b][1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines "


By this very definition COD is a role playing game because you play a role in a fictional setting 

That's what I've been saying, CoD is roleplaying game at it's most basic form. Children playing their toys is roleplaying at it's most basic form. Even if you play Super Mario you're roleplaying as long as you pretend to be Super Mario. SO Yes, Melo isn't wrong with his assessment that people don't realize they're roleplaying even in a game like CoD. So yes it's make sense to attract CoD crowds and Skyrim can do that because of First Person View and combat. Either you like it or not, first person view camera does give you and illusion that  you are the character - and thus assuming the role of the character - therefore,  roleplaying. exist. 

Other things just guideline on how to make your roleplaying meaningful and fun like story, progression, accomplishment, interaction, choice and consequences etc . . 

However, autologue and any features that promote out-of-character behaviour is not roleplaying because you're not in control of your character . You're letting the game play the role for you. The Irony is, this issue happen frequently in an RPG like Mass Effect 3's autodialogue instead of non-RPG like Counter Strike. .  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 juin 2012 - 03:26 .

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
You're making me google things.  Thanks.  Anyway, it is disturbing because both Origins and Westwood studios were RPG makers and both went under soon after purchase.  Do you think Bioware is headed for the same fate?  It's not exactly the same considering Bioware really doesn't make RPGs anymore.

Who can say.. Bioware is a brand name for EA as long as the brand works they will keep it. Once it becomes more of a liability they will restructure.

Couple of my personal conclusions.

1. EA is doing a Lucas. It's now more about the merchandising than the product.
2. EA have realised that if you advertise and grease enough palms you can sell anything.

Niether of which is really good for gaming.

[jbrand2002uk]

Actually agreed with Sacred_Fantasy(God i must be feeling unwell lol) my point being that while auto dialogue and other features that promote out of character behaviour are not desirable having them does not preclude it from being as much of an RPG as a game that doesn't include these features, its simply a different approach and different does not automatically equal worse or bad.

[joshko]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

joshko wrote...
Well if you want to get super techincle the only true way to role play is to LARP .

Well, I guess it's just that I didn't even know that I was a roleplaying game fan until I played Ultima 6.  Though the first game I ever heard called an "RPG" is Final Fantasy 2/4 when my friend got it for SNES.

With Ultima 6, it was cool to run around and fight.  The conversation system was a bit clunky.  I loved the Medieval aspect of it, and the first PC I ever got was because I fell in love with Ultima 7 playing on a friend's computer.  I loved the character progression and the idea that I got more powerful as I completed objectives and killed bad guys.  Stuff like that haha.

I had a similar experience, in fact almost identical, with the ES games, can't remeber which one.
Of course for me it was also the exploration and open world.

[ElitePinecone]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
During the past years we move forward with our graphic and visual presentation but move backward with RPG. 

Yes, and I think there's a tradeoff there, but it's something the vast majority of AAA developers have chosen to do. The market, as fickle as it is, might also look very harshly on games that don't take advantage of a few decades of graphical advancements. 

Having cinematic storytelling isn't entirely incompatible with deep and complex RPG and narrative systems, but it definitely makes things harder and more expensive. It's really easy to be nostalgic about old RPGs and critical of current games that allegedly lack depth, but trying to (for example) create separate branching conversations and quest outcomes becomes exponentially more expensive and less worth doing when only a small percentage of your future player base will ever see it. Budgets *are* limited, and it's a lot more expensive to pay voice actors, not to mention the cindesign team, than to just do everything in text. 

I find myself much preferring modern games with all their technical wizardy, the ME3 moment in my signature simply wouldn't have the same impact if it was rendered in a game that lacked sophisticated cinematics, animations or artistic design. There's definitely an argument to be made for more complexity, but budgets are finite. 

Point being: I think the trend in the industry has not necessarily been away from complexity, but towards resource-intense storytelling evoking cinema. When it costs so much to develop branching paths, alternate cinematics and different gameplay environments depending on player choice, developers simply can't offer the same breadth of those choices. 

We can't have *all* the good things at once. There needs to be a tradeoff, and for most developers it's meant restricting choice or depth. That's entirely their perogative, and I think a lot of the criticism people have comes from ignorance, or the naive idea that game development is funded by a bottomless pit of money. 

The alternative would be to create amazingly deep RPGs with modest graphical/cinematic/voiceover ambitions, and maybe indie or smaller devs are starting to do that. But I like Bioware's storytelling power when the graphical fidelity is higher, they can pay for decent voice actors and have experienced cindesign people working on cutscenes. 

[GreenSoda]

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

I don't want to be too nitpicky, but...that's not exactly BG2 -it's a screenshot from a *modded* BG2. In fact, all of the dialogue options displayed here are out of the module ("(Hold a blade Salvanas' privates)", "So you want to get into Saerileth's pants, eh ?" etc... are kind of dead giveaways) 

Modifié par GreenSoda, 06 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[Jerrybnsn]

^
Great Graphics like Witcher and great story telling like Bioware. With more RPG like Origins.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I think we disagree about what player agency is.

In BG, the characters did what they were told, said what they were supposed to say, went wherever the player wanted them to go.  What more is there to player agency?

[Arch1eviathan]

coqrouge wrote...

Isn't every game supposed to appeal to a wider audience? Developers/Publishers want to see their games sold...

Skyrim didn't. They continued to build on an already established game engine and univurse. The devs knew what oblivions strong points were and went from there. Skyrim is way better than its predecessor and may have even realed in some new costumers but it still feels like i'm playing an elder scrolls game. they don't go in 10 different directions trying to appeal to an audience that weren't interested in what makes that perticular game shine. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

joshko wrote...

Ah Allan you sly dog!

I think it's not so much that they don't want to RP a character it's to what extent do they want to.

A die hard RP player will have no problem being forced to sleep at night and eat three times a day, but any one else probably wouldn't find that pleasent.

But that does not mean that any one else would not enjoy the more relaxed, and "fun" I suppose you could put it, forms of RPing (such as how you look or whether you want your one hander to be two or three times bigger than your body.)

Well, depending on what people mean by it, does a game like Baldur's Gate really require one to "roleplay" the game to enjoy it.  Same with a game like Planescape: Torment.  If you like reading (and can tolerate questionable combat...) it has a fantastic story.

I don't think it's at all important that the game require the player to roleplay, but it is important that the game allow the player to roleplay.

Roleplaying involves seeing the game world through the character's eyes, and the character's eyes only.  Game content the character can't see ceases to be relevant.  All decisions the player is expected to make need to be decisions the character can reasonably make, given the information available to the character.

So, for example, in DAO the player knows that Loghain abandoned the field at Ostagar (and that Cauthrien brielfy objected) because he saw it in a cutscene.  But the Warden doesn't know this at all.  The only information the Warden has about the batter comes from Morrigan, and Morrigan doesn't even use names when describing it.  Alistair seems to believe Morrigan unquestioningly, which is a bit odd, but the Warden need not.  He won't really have evidence of what happened until he gets reports from refugees at Lothering.

A game that allows roleplaying is structured such that the PC's actions can be dictated solely by in-character knowledge.  If the PC is supposed to fight some villain, then the PC needs to have enough information about that villain to want to do that.

Information the PC needs cannot be provided only to the player.  The PC isn't privy to the contents of the player's mind.

[Fast Jimmy]

GreenSoda wrote...


I don't want to be too nitpicky, but...that's not exactly BG2 -it's a screenshot from a *modded* BG2. In fact, all of the dialogue options displayed here are out of the module ("(Hold a blade Salvanas' privates)", "So you want to get into Saerileth's pants, eh ?" etc... are kind of dead giveaways) 

This is a valid point, that this content was not actually created by Bioware. 

But doesn't that look like something that would be a step in the right direction of an RPG? In fact. Isn't that screenshot an indictment of the more cinematic RPG model and not supplying a modded toolkit? If a fan could take the old way of doing things and make an insane amount of choice available, then that would seem to indicate that the new way, which eats up a ton of resources every time any variance is added, is the wrong way. Hawke would have three ways of saying the same thing, almost alway which would result in the same outcome and which would sound incredibly out of character unless you had made the exact same types of choices previous to that. 

How is that progress? Am I missing something?