778 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cyberarmy wrote...

For starters Obsidian and İnExile and maybe Harebrained Schemes.
Troika was on the right track but got closed...R.I.P.
Irontower Studios are making Age of Decandence, you may like it.

Obsidian keeps making games with real-time combat.  Age of Decadence has potential.

I was expecting you to point me at Paradox and Spiderweb.

[Chromie]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

For starters Obsidian and İnExile and maybe Harebrained Schemes.
Troika was on the right track but got closed...R.I.P.
Irontower Studios are making Age of Decandence, you may like it.

Obsidian keeps making games with real-time combat.  Age of Decadence has potential.

I was expecting you to point me at Paradox and Spiderweb.

South Park is a turn based game.

Would the  average Bioware fan take the the time to learn how to play Crusader Kings 2 or any other Paradox title? Spiderweb studios is great though.

Modifié par Skelter192, 17 juillet 2012 - 09:10 .

[AkiKishi]

Skelter192 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

For starters Obsidian and İnExile and maybe Harebrained Schemes.
Troika was on the right track but got closed...R.I.P.
Irontower Studios are making Age of Decandence, you may like it.

Obsidian keeps making games with real-time combat.  Age of Decadence has potential.

I was expecting you to point me at Paradox and Spiderweb.

South Park is a turn based game.

Would the  average Bioware fan take the the time to learn how to play Crusader Kings 2 or any other Paradox title? Spiderweb studios is great though.

South Park plays like Costume Quest/Paper Mario. Still not sure I want to pay full price for it, it depends what other details surface and what the demo is like.

[Cyberarmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

For starters Obsidian and İnExile and maybe Harebrained Schemes.
Troika was on the right track but got closed...R.I.P.
Irontower Studios are making Age of Decandence, you may like it.

Obsidian keeps making games with real-time combat.  Age of Decadence has potential.

I was expecting you to point me at Paradox and Spiderweb.

I love Paradox and its unnecessarily detailed and bugfest games, but they are not making anything like Bioware did. They are mainly publishing/making strategy games. Sword&Mount is a gem tough especially at RP servers.

And i totally forgot about Spiderweb and Avadon/Avernum.

Edit: And for Obsidian; yeah they made their last games pretty action based, but they did also NWN2 and making South Park rpg so i still have faith in them.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 17 juillet 2012 - 10:30 .

[Chromie]

BobSmith101 wrote...
South Park plays like Costume Quest/Paper Mario. Still not sure I want to pay full price for it, it depends what other details surface and what the demo is like.

Turn based is turn based.

[Cyberarmy]

Skelter192 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
South Park plays like Costume Quest/Paper Mario. Still not sure I want to pay full price for it, it depends what other details surface and what the demo is like.

Turn based is turn based.

Yeah they had me at turn based too
BTW i secretly hope (like the fool iam) that Bioware suprise us with making DA3 combat turn based.


Lol im hopeless

[AkiKishi]

Skelter192 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
South Park plays like Costume Quest/Paper Mario. Still not sure I want to pay full price for it, it depends what other details surface and what the demo is like.

Turn based is turn based.

There is a real time reaction element to the game though.

For example Mr.Slaves special "butt swallow" attack requires hammering a button frantically.

Anyone with access to PSN should download Rainbow Moon.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 juillet 2012 - 10:44 .

[Chromie]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Yeah they had me at turn based too
BTW i secretly hope (like the fool iam) that Bioware suprise us with making DA3 combat turn based.


Lol im hopeless

That would ****** off the action junkies and make us happy. 

BobSmith101 wrote...
There is a real time reaction element to the game though.

For example Mr.Slaves special "butt swallow" attack requires hammering a button frantically.

Anyone with access to PSN should download Rainbow Moon.

 

I didn't know that sounds hilarious. I enjoy Paper Mario's combat so I'm fine with that. 
I've looked at Rainbow Moon sadly I don't own a PS3 and I'm so not buying my friend the game. 

[AkiKishi]

Skelter192 wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

Yeah they had me at turn based too
BTW i secretly hope (like the fool iam) that Bioware suprise us with making DA3 combat turn based.


Lol im hopeless

That would ****** off the action junkies and make us happy. 

BobSmith101 wrote...
There is a real time reaction element to the game though.

For example Mr.Slaves special "butt swallow" attack requires hammering a button frantically.

Anyone with access to PSN should download Rainbow Moon.

 

I didn't know that sounds hilarious. I enjoy Paper Mario's combat so I'm fine with that. 
I've looked at Rainbow Moon sadly I don't own a PS3 and I'm so not buying my friend the game. 

From what I've seen of the way some people play DA2 turnbased could be faster overall than all that pausing.

There should be a PC version of Rainbow Moon released sometime soon(ish).

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 juillet 2012 - 12:49 .

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare will follow the audience. Or if they won't, someone else will. But that audience needs to exist. Too many people are blindly accepting the loss of quality features. I keep those features in the public eye.

That audience which you want them to cater to is a small number of hardcore RPG fans.  Even Baldurs Gate 2, the most successful RPG of its time by far, continuously praised even today on dozens of gaming sites, sold 2 million over 10 years.   ME3 has already beaten that.   Sure they cost less to develop, but they still probably made a greater profit.

People complain on games sites that The Witcher 2 is hard to understand.   Most gamers today play everything on easy difficulty (and there are stats out there to prove it).  On the gamespot and IGN forums (and these are already gamers who are experienced enough and care enough about video games to have a forum account) people said they found it hard to understand the stat system of DA:O.

In modern gaming, people want a game that grabs them from the start, you will say this is wrong but that is the way it is.  They don't want to have to read a 50 page manual or scroll through 10 pages of tutorials, they want action, story NOW NOW NOW. 

So imagine if a game was as complicated as BG, with it's myriad death, stat and gear systems.  It just wouln't do well.     Why is Deus Ex now a game with a fixed protagonist, why is ME?  Because the developers CAN DO MORE, and if that means we can do less, so be it, I want a great story with interesting choices.   One failure does not mean that everyone is on your side about going back to old-school RPGs.   


There's a reason why Age of Decadence doesn't look as good  (visually), or have as big a team a Dragon Age.  Because DA has more funding, because DA3 will make more money.    When you start your hardcore RPG company and get $35m from Kickstarter/ a publisher to pay for your 200 developers, then you can say that you think there's a Mass Effect-sized market out there for hardcore RPGs. 



In fact, here's a QUOTE by an Age of Decadence developer:

• "RPS: What do you think people’s response to Age will be?[/b]
• Vince D. Weller: Some people will like it. Some people will hate it. The usual. If I have to guess, I’d say that most people would ignore it because hardcore RPGs with lots of text and a decade-old graphics don’t tend to sell a lot. However, there are people who like such games and I really hope that they’ll enjoy AoD. Our aspirations don’t go further."

Modifié par Cimeas, 17 juillet 2012 - 01:55 .

[Cimeas]

This article herehttp://www.irontower...php?topic=186.0 expl' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=186.0
explains what you think about RPG's, amirite?  The thing is, thats a very narrow definition.  Role-playing is just that, playing a role.  You can roleplay as a made up hero, or you can roleplay as Drake from Uncharted or Geralt from The Witcher.    If the genre you call RPGs cannot contain experienced like DA2/ME, then what genre is it?    Choice driven adventure game?  Cinematic Role Directive Game?    If people consider them RPGs, that is what they are.

Afterall, names don't matter.  Had you read reviews or watched gameplay of DA2, you would know what you're going to get. 

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

This article herehttp://www.irontower...php?topic=186.0 expl' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=186.0
explains what you think about RPG's, amirite?  The thing is, thats a very narrow definition.  Role-playing is just that, playing a role.  You can roleplay as a made up hero, or you can roleplay as Drake from Uncharted or Geralt from The Witcher.    If the genre you call RPGs cannot contain experienced like DA2/ME, then what genre is it?    Choice driven adventure game?  Cinematic Role Directive Game?    If people consider them RPGs, that is what they are.

Afterall, names don't matter.  Had you read reviews or watched gameplay of DA2, you would know what you're going to get. 

Uncharted is not an RPG because Drake is an extention of your abilities. If it were as simple as just playing a role then almost every game would be an RPG.

[Cimeas]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

This article herehttp://www.irontower...php?topic=186.0 expl' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=186.0
explains what you think about RPG's, amirite?  The thing is, thats a very narrow definition.  Role-playing is just that, playing a role.  You can roleplay as a made up hero, or you can roleplay as Drake from Uncharted or Geralt from The Witcher.    If the genre you call RPGs cannot contain experienced like DA2/ME, then what genre is it?    Choice driven adventure game?  Cinematic Role Directive Game?    If people consider them RPGs, that is what they are.

Afterall, names don't matter.  Had you read reviews or watched gameplay of DA2, you would know what you're going to get. 

Uncharted is not an RPG because Drake is an extention of your abilities. If it were as simple as just playing a role then almost every game would be an RPG.

Exactly, and this vast definition means people have different idea of what constitutes an RPG.  For example, I consider ME and DA RPGs, but I wouldn't consider Uncharted one, because it doesn't have conversation choices, side quests, or multiple endings. 

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

Exactly, and this vast definition means people have different idea of what constitutes an RPG.  For example, I consider ME and DA RPGs, but I wouldn't consider Uncharted one, because it doesn't have conversation choices, side quests, or multiple endings. 

Not really what I was getting at. Drakes improvement is based on the player (hopefully) getting better at the game. Contrast that with HR where you can upgrade Adam in ways that make it possible to do things that were previously not.

Putting in alternate endings (there are already sidequests) and conversation pathing would not make Uncharted an RPG.

[Cimeas]

Hmm yeah, but it's an example. Uncharted is probably a bit too far but Deus Ex is what we would consider an RPG perhaps..... Sylvius is arguing that that isn't the case.

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

Hmm yeah, but it's an example. Uncharted is probably a bit too far but Deus Ex is what we would consider an RPG perhaps..... Sylvius is arguing that that isn't the case.

Well as far as I'm concerned Deus Ex ticks all the boxes for "RPGness".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Skelter192 wrote...

Would the  average Bioware fan take the the time to learn how to play Crusader Kings 2 or any other Paradox title?

I expect every game to have a 200 page manual that I need to read before playing the game.  I really don't like how BioWare games now offer no documentation at all, and somehow expect players to play the game completely blind.

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I expect every game to have a 200 page manual that I need to read before playing the game.  I really don't like how BioWare games now offer no documentation at all, and somehow expect players to play the game completely blind.

See, I expect the exact opposite.

I want to buy my game, pop it in, and start playing. I don't want to read a technical manual before I play my game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

That audience which you want them to cater to is a small number of hardcore RPG fans.  Even Baldurs Gate 2, the most successful RPG of its time by far, continuously praised even today on dozens of gaming sites, sold 2 million over 10 years.   ME3 has already beaten that.   Sure they cost less to develop, but they still probably made a greater profit.

I bet they don't.  The costs of development of comparable features has gone down.  BioWare should be able to make a game that returns large profits even if it only sells 200,000 copies.  They'll never be blockbusters, but blockbusters aren't predictable (Bethesda certainly didn't expect to sell 10 million copies of Skyrim).

In modern gaming, people want a game that grabs them from the start, you will say this is wrong but that is the way it is.  They don't want to have to read a 50 page manual or scroll through 10 pages of tutorials, they want action, story NOW NOW NOW. 

That's what the mass market wants, yes.  I don't think these games should target the mass market.

The mass market always wants advanced visuals and cutting-edge technology.  The mass market wants voice-acting.  We could save so much by not catering to the mass market.

There's a reason why Age of Decadence doesn't look as good  (visually), or have as big a team a Dragon Age.

I think Age of Decadence looks great.  I'm concerned it might be too combat-heavy, but visually I'm a big fan.

As for the size of the team, one of my all-time favourite games, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, was made by a company that only had 17 employees.  You don't need 300 people to make a game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maclimes wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I expect every game to have a 200 page manual that I need to read before playing the game.  I really don't like how BioWare games now offer no documentation at all, and somehow expect players to play the game completely blind.

See, I expect the exact opposite.

I want to buy my game, pop it in, and start playing. I don't want to read a technical manual before I play my game.

How can you play it without being shown how the mechanics work?  DA2 threw me into the game and I was completely lost.  I didn't know what the wheel icons meant.  I didn't know how the stats worked.  DA2 made a terrible first impression on me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

This article herehttp://www.irontower...php?topic=186.0 expl' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=186.0
explains what you think about RPG's, amirite? 

He gets it right almost immediately.  He defines roleplaying as "making decisions fitting your character," and then expands from there.

The thing is, thats a very narrow definition.

I think it's a very broad definition, but it's also a very rigid definition.  A wide variety of games could match that description, but suimilarly a great many games don't.  I'm not interested in games that don't

Role-playing is just that, playing a role.  You can roleplay as a made up hero, or you can roleplay as Drake from Uncharted or Geralt from The Witcher.

 
Arguably, yes, depending how the game is designed.  A real-time action game, I would argue, forces you play as yourself, not as your character, and thus fails the test.

I have no objection to fixed PCs per se (they're not my preference, but I don't think they necessarily prohibit roleplaying), but I have yet to see a game with a fixed PC actually allow roleplaying.  I think they can, but they haven't yet.

If the genre you call RPGs cannot contain experienced like DA2/ME, then what genre is it?    Choice driven adventure game?  Cinematic Role Directive Game?

 
I usually call them Adventure Games.  DA2 fails to be an RPG in exactly the same way that King's Quest does.

If people consider them RPGs, that is what they are.

NO.  Definitions are not subject to popular opinion.  To allow that would destroy all meaning.

Afterall, names don't matter.  Had you read reviews or watched gameplay of DA2, you would know what you're going to get.

I hate spoilers.  I'll only watch video demonstrations with the sound turned off.  And reviewers are shockingly uninformative.  I once read a review for a strategy game, and through the whole review I couldn't tell whether the game was real-time or turn-based.  This fundamental gameplay detail wasn't even mentioned.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 juillet 2012 - 06:00 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

wsandista wrote...

HAHAHA! Old Bioware ain't coming back bro! Moar cinematics, less gameplay is the new mantra!

I miss it classic BW too, but I don't think we will ever be seeing something like the classic games(BG, NWN, KOTOR, hell DAO) from BW again.

Pretty much.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I bet they don't.  The costs of development of comparable features has gone down.  BioWare should be able to make a game that returns large profits even if it only sells 200,000 copies.  They'll never be blockbusters, but blockbusters aren't predictable (Bethesda certainly didn't expect to sell 10 million copies of Skyrim).
.
.
.
As for the size of the team, one of my all-time favourite games, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, was made by a company that only had 17 employees.  You don't need 300 people to make a game.

I loved Alpha Centauri - and Civilization, too.

To further illustrate your point, let's do a bit of math.

Small team of 20 people builds a game in 2 years = 480 man months
Huge team of 300 people builds a game in 18 months = 5400 man months

Assuming the cost of the man months between the two teams is roughly equal (and that marketing, distribution, and other costs scale accordingly), the huge game needs to generate (5400/480)  11.25 times as much revenue to achieve the same ROI.

If the development timeframes were equal, and we were comparing a 20 person team with a 300 person team, the multiplier would be 15.

Of course, the reality is that the 300-person team really only exists when a project is in full-on production.  Much of the writing, planning, and overall design takes place with a smaller group of people in pre-prod.  Since most businesses don't have the luxury of paying a couple hundred people to sit on their hands for any length of time, the schedules of those pre-prod teams can be dictated by the availability of the production pool - which has a lot more potential to harm than to help the game's quality, as in:

Pre-prod Team:  But we need another month to refine and iron out the....
$$:  No.

[Maclimes]

 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How can you play it without being shown how the mechanics work?  DA2 threw me into the game and I was completely lost.  I didn't know what the wheel icons meant.  I didn't know how the stats worked.  DA2 made a terrible first impression on me.

This is the second time in a week that I've been forced to wonder how you managed to survive to get wherever you are today. Do you not know how to learn by doing? Simple comprehension? Did you not see the soft green olive branch, the goofy smiling mask, or the glowing red fist and get an indication of what they mean? Also, the stats tell you how they work. You just have to hover over them.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of humanity learns better by doing, not by simply reading about it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I usually call them Adventure Games.  DA2 fails to be an RPG in exactly the same way that King's Quest does.

What about Quest For Glory? I think that game series is the absolute best comparison to DA2 I've ever seen. It's an Action/Adventure game, with RPG elements. Set protagonist, but you make his decisions as he goes (what little "decisions" there are in QFG, anyway).

Maybe that's why I actually enjoyed DA2. It reminded me of my favorite of game series of all time. I never realized that until just now. Interesting.

Also, I suppose that's the ultimate argument here. Bioware is moving the DA series away from RPG, more towards Adventure. It's up to your personal preference whether or not that's a good thing.

[Maclimes]

Man, the more and more I think about it, I realize that's exactly what it is.

Rogue/Mage/Warrior .... Import character decisions from game to game ... "RPG" style stats, but no focus on strategy or tactics ... Constant humor (often silly or inappropriate) ... Each game is set in a different country in the larger world ... Focus on collecting items to complete quests, as opposed to performing actions or making decisions ... Downplayed roleplaying in favor of a memorable, personal hero ...

Dragon Age is not the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate at all ... It's the spiritual successor to Quest For Glory. It just took them a game or two to realize it.