329 réponses à ce sujet

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

When I buy games, I want to play them more than watch them.

Stick to FPSs then.  You'll always be clicking and clacking and running and playing the game.  An RPG needs story and moves are a perfect blend of sound and action.  A good RPG balances the story with the mouse clicks.  The balance needs to move away from the endless lame fights of the old days and over to the better blend of action and story in DA2/ME2/ME3.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

NKKKK wrote...

If DA2 would have had a three year development, it would have been a good game.

It would have been a better game, yes. But it was the poor decisions made by the people in charge that made it a bad game. As I've said before, it's hard to believe the Origins team made DA2.

[Maclimes]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

When I buy games, I want to play them more than watch them.

Stick to FPSs then.  You'll always be clicking and clacking and running and playing the game.  An RPG needs story and moves are a perfect blend of sound and action.  A good RPG balances the story with the mouse clicks.  The balance needs to move away from the endless lame fights of the old days and over to the better blend of action and story in DA2/ME2/ME3.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Every fight should matter, in a story based on a game. No more wave after wave of random fighting just to fill up space and time. (Not that DA2 did that any better, however...)

[Pasquale1234]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

When I buy games, I want to play them more than watch them.

Stick to FPSs then.

Not possible, since I don't play them.  I dislike action games.

An RPG needs story and moves are a perfect blend of sound and action.

An RPG needs role-playing.  Watching movies is not active role-play.

The balance needs to move away from the endless lame fights and boring cinematics of DA2/ME2/ME3 and over to the better blend of action, story, and immersive role-playing as exemplified in DAO..

Fixed.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Maclimes wrote...

I'm inclined to agree with you. Every fight should matter, in a story based on a game. No more wave after wave of random fighting just to fill up space and time. (Not that DA2 did that any better, however...)

The random, multi-wave fights in DA2 still make me shudder.  I'm glad someone else agrees though!  Every battle should matter.  Every battle should be about something.  Then I wouldn't mind if they were complicated, sprawling things.  I'd be ok with that.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

An RPG needs role-playing.  Watching movies is not active role-play.

Role playing requires conversation, actions, and dialogue between characters.  That's a movie. 

Fixed.

DAO was a bad modern game.  Good throwback, bad modern game.  See the conversation earlier in the thread.

[Uccio]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

When I buy games, I want to play them more than watch them.

Stick to FPSs then.  You'll always be clicking and clacking and running and playing the game.  An RPG needs story and moves are a perfect blend of sound and action.  A good RPG balances the story with the mouse clicks.  The balance needs to move away from the endless lame fights of the old days and over to the better blend of action and story in DA2/ME2/ME3.

Well that bolded part kind of took the wind out of your comment. Can´t say about ME3 since I will not buy it but I heard that it is no longer a rpg also. DA2 is nothing more than a hack´n slash with videos, not a rpg.

Modifié par Ukki, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:01 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Ukki wrote...

Well that bolded part kind of took the wind out of your comment. Can´t say about ME3 since I will not buy it but I heard that it is no longer a rpg also. DA2 is nothing more than a hack´n slash with videos, not a rpg.

That's Witcher/Witcher2, not DA2.  DA2 is a good RPG with some soft spots.

[Pasquale1234]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
Role playing requires conversation, actions, and dialogue between characters.  That's a movie. 

Roleplaying implies control, or at the very least, knowledge of what the character will do before s/he acts.  That was seriously lacking in DA2.

DAO was a bad modern game.  Good throwback, bad modern game.  See the conversation earlier in the thread.

Opinion

[Maclimes]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Opinion

Are you going to do that everytime someone posts an opinion in an assertive way? You must be VERY busy (or very bored).

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Maclimes wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Opinion

Are you going to do that everytime someone posts an opinion in an assertive way? You must be VERY busy (or very bored).

They think this is math class.  :lol:  He doesn't get that we're all stating opinions. 

[Pasquale1234]

Maclimes wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Opinion

Are you going to do that everytime someone posts an opinion in an assertive way? You must be VERY busy (or very bored).

That's the first time I've ever done that.  I don't expect it will become a pattern.

Many people state their opinions as such, instead of making broad statements as if they were fact.

[FieryDove]

I don't buy games to watch them, movies are much better deal for that.

Oh >sig

[PsychoBlonde]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
A good RPG balances the story with the mouse clicks.  The balance needs to move away from the endless lame fights of the old days and over to the better blend of action and story in DA2/ME2/ME3.

I'd like it if they'd get over this problem they have with locking the story and the gameplay in different rooms--that was actually far WORSE in DA2 than in Origins.  In Origins people would, say, recognize that you were an Elf or a Mage.  It didn't really MATTER, because, you know, BLIGHT, but they'd NOTICE.  In DA2 it really SHOULD have mattered, and they didn't notice at all.

As the story becomes more and more cinematic, they seem to be forgetting that they can let you make choices that aren't direct dialog choices.  In DDO, for instance, there's a quest with an optional objective not to kill the charmed guards, and there are about five different ways to accomplish or not accomplish this goal.  This in a game with basically no story-style dialog options, yet there are five different ways to deal with this one unimportant optional objective.  I'll even list them:

1.  Convince the mage controlling the guards to go alone with you to a secluded place where you can then kill him, which frees the guards.  (Optional successful).
2.  Convince the mage controlling the guards to go, WITH the guards, to the same secluded place, and drop him before any of the guards get killed.  (Optional successful).
3.  Same as 2, only kill a guard before the mage dies. (Optional fail).
4.  Leave the mage be until the end fight, when he shows up and you can THEN kill him before you kill any of the guards.  (Optional successful.  This is very difficult because there's so much going on in the end fight that it's almost certain at least one of the guards will die before you can accomplish this.)
5.  Same as 4, only the guards die before the mage does. (Optional fail)

Whereas in DA2, there'd be exactly 2 options in this situation.  

1.  You make the conversation check that separates the mage from the guards so you can kill him
2.  You select the conversation option that starts the mass battle and the combat does not end until you've butchered everything in sight.

I'm sure some people would say that the latter is still superior storytelling if it comes along with lots of cool voice-acted dialog, but for my money the former is taking advantage of the medium far better to give the player choice and agency.

I'll grant you the former sometimes becomes riddled with bugs and it's only a mercy that you're not dependent upon it working perfectly in order to finish the quest.  There's a tradeoff involved here.  But enormous improvements can be made even if a fully integrated game is still out of reach.

As for the rest of DA2, I either liked or was generally indifferent to the rest of the changes--they weren't radical enough to change the degree of my enjoyment, although many of them changed the *kind* of my enjoyment.

[Cimeas]

Games generally have voiced protagonists now. It is accepted, like being in 3D, or having DLC, or having a special/collectors edition. It's just a convention, and it's there for a reason.

Voice acting adds to immersion. Imagine Mass Effect without VA. It would lose so much.


RPGs should have worlds that feel real (not realistic, they can be set in fantasy/sci-fi/have dragons/whatever) and real life has voice. You hear yourself speak. You don't in an RPG.


It just seems that this one issue is a pointless hang-up. Voice acting is here to stay, in every single AAA story based RPG. Guaranteed, no going back.

[Kileyan]

I happen to like battles, I like the chances to perfect my strategies, try out new things, or new character builds. I don't really want a game that is hours of cinematic with just a few meaningful boss battles.

However, I do get what people mean by some of the battles being filler. I think part of it is how game mechanics have changed. In the old days, every battle did matter to some degree, even if it was just some random bandits. You had limited spells, limited buffs, usually limited healing or buff potions, you never knew if you blew all your artillery on that random encounter, if you might get hit again before you could rest and recharge.

For example that long trek up the mountain to meet a dragon in DA2. It was full of nasty undead encounters. In the old days it could be marked a no resting zone, it would have been nail biting decisions, use that super fireball now or will I need it later?

Now its just blah, use every cooldown soon as they pop, bam full power the next battle.

I guess I am saying in the old days, random battles were designed to whittle down your resources, now they are just annoying speed bumps where you throw the same full power at them, as you will 20 minutes later vs a world shattering demon god.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, just saying its the reason random trash encounters are seen more today as filler and useless wastes of time.

[AkiKishi]

Kileyan wrote...
I'm not saying one is better than the other, just saying its the reason random trash encounters are seen more today as filler and useless wastes of time.

That's the key difference. Battles are about resource management. Getting from the start of the dungeon to the boss and still having enough "left in the tank" to finish them off.
Once you start introducing autofixing between battles , then they just become filler and lose any wider meaning.

[TonberryFeye]

I think the closest I've come to needing resource management in a Dragon Age game was the playthrough I insisted on doing Orzammar first, and accidentally gave most of my Health Poultices to the Blackstone Irregulars. That made every battle a nail-biting experience, because I knew I couldn't afford to keep chugging the damn things.

Recent playthroughs, partly because of using all the DLC stuff, are just laughably easy though. Short of cranking the difficulty up to maximum, there's no real challenge outside of the boss fights.

[SafetyShattered]

I understand that your a bit skeptical of the next DA but honestly we don't know anything about it yet. Don't really think that we know anything to really complain about. Yes we know it will have paraphrasing, but lets be honest. Pretty much everyone probably knew about that already. And as far as the game probably being in Orlais and having armor adapt to the companions who equip it sounds pretty cool. So maybe we should wait until we actually...know....things about DA3 BEFORE we start bashing it.

[TonberryFeye]

Nah, we should run it into the ground now. It's the only way BioWare will actually do well; if everyone believes DA3 will be ****, then when it turns out to be mediocre it's still better than we expected.

[JasonPogo]

TonberryFeye wrote...

Nah, we should run it into the ground now. It's the only way BioWare will actually do well; if everyone believes DA3 will be ****, then when it turns out to be mediocre it's still better than we expected.

Best advice ever givin on the BSN.

[Fiery Phoenix]

They get it. They just don't always agree with you.

[wsandista]

TonberryFeye wrote...

Nah, we should run it into the ground now. It's the only way BioWare will actually do well; if everyone believes DA3 will be ****, then when it turns out to be mediocre it's still better than we expected.

$60 for a mediocre game(especially when games like Skyrim and the Witcher sold for about the same when they were released) is unacceptable. I'm more than willing to pay $160(the price of games in the 80s adjusted for inflation) for a great game, but I won't pay the market rate for a great game to recieve a mediocre or ******-poor game. 

[wsandista]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DAO was a bad modern game.  Good throwback, bad modern game.  See the conversation earlier in the thread.

DA2 was also a bad modern game, seeing as it sold much less in the market. If DAO succeded as a throwback game, why wouldn't any other throwback game of similar quality succed as well?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Yeah. I would say you have it backwards.DA2 is the bad modern game. DA:O is just a great game no matter how you slice it.