Rawgrim wrote...
Well the screenshots and all the other stuff they have allready showed us is "reality" not hype.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware steering away from the design of their most successful and wide-reaching game to date in an attempt to gain more fans by mimicing other genres designs is them chasing the blonde as well. But I have no control over what Bioware does. Although, granted, I have no control over you. But I can say that you sitting there going "neiner, neiner, neiner, I got what I wanted, you all didn't" is probably not accurate, since you may find that in the long term, it isn't exactly what you wanted.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 11:11 .
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Satyricon331 wrote...
Oh, please. You were there, telling LobselVith8 that between a a system that had set armor and a system that had set appearances regardless of armor, mashing them together in a way Lobs seemed to feel was a "clumsy hybrid" was fine
No, I said in a post you didn't quote that pretending it wasn't an attempt at compromise was unfair because the effort was made. While I did say that compromise was about sharing, I did not say that he could not prefer and desire the DAO system anyway. Quite the opposite.Satyricon331 wrote...
. Then you said the earlier Bioware games were such that "Players like me and players like Sylvius the Mad were, up till then [DA2], enjoying BioWare games in our own way without any knowledge that the other existed." Now you're wanting to claim that having games that accommodate a variety of "playstyle[s]" (to use your word) are beyond the possibility of compromise.
Because they reached a point where a wedge was driven. That's the point of the argument, in fact. Now that cinematic games are possible and not limited by technology, the game (pun not intended) has changed.Satyricon331 wrote...
I was just having a little bit of light-hearted fun with you, but really you need to get over yourself. And lol @ the idea that was a "lecture."
Now it is.
Rawgrim wrote...
breyant wrote...
I like this decision. I would play human anyway, especially if elves still look the same as they did in DA2.
Hopefully this means more time and resources can be spent on developing the story and characters since they won't need to plan out multiple races/ starting quests/ storylines.
That time and effort will be spent on the multiplayer bit.
Guest_Faerunner_*
RosaAquafire wrote...
I don't care about aesthetics, I just like how DA's races have such interesting backgrounds and cultures, where humans ... don't. It's FUN to play as a different culture, to put yourself into those shoes. Especially as an elf -- there's something completely satisfying about playing as a second-class citizen to me, being treated like crap by NPCs. I love that.
I thought there was at least a 30% chance of races coming back and the fact that they're not is a HUGE bummer. For those of us who consider the roleplaying experience the most important part of an rpg, this sucks really hard. Really hard. Playing as a different race transforms the world around me. Even if it doesn't react to me, *I* react to *it* through my RP. I would rather all four races with no customization than a human I can make into anything I want. They'll still be human, DA's most vanilla race.
Satyricon331 wrote...
I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here, since nothing you've said somehow obviates the ironies I was pointing out. They still stand.
exactlyRawgrim wrote...
deuce985 wrote...
How would people feel if MP allows you to play different races? Just curious. Would that ****** people off?
thats the irony of it. A feature "nobody wants" includes an option that people want in the single player bit.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
breyant wrote...
I like this decision. I would play human anyway, especially if elves still look the same as they did in DA2.
Hopefully this means more time and resources can be spent on developing the story and characters since they won't need to plan out multiple races/ starting quests/ storylines.
That time and effort will be spent on the multiplayer bit.
Heh.
I find the argument "Well, the MP is done by a different department/studio, so it won't eat into the resources of the SP campaign."
What kind of stupid logic is that? Is it being done by a team of leprachauns and unicorns, who work for sunshines and rainbows? Because otherwise I don't care if its done in house, out of house, under someone's house or a house on the moon... its costing money and time.
The REAL reason they want to tack on multiplayer is because they think it will net them more money. Either through piracy-stopping measures like DRM or registration, or through microtransactions (or both), the company is seeing dollar signs, they aren't seeing a game feature. They are paying more money to put a shackles on the game's feet and are telling us its a pretty ankle bracelet.
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 21 octobre 2012 - 11:16 .
Fast Jimmy wrote...
The REAL reason they want to tack on multiplayer is because they think it will net them more money. Either through piracy-stopping measures like DRM or registration, or through microtransactions (or both), the company is seeing dollar signs, they aren't seeing a game feature. They are paying more money to put a shackles on the game's feet and are telling us its a pretty ankle bracelet.
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware steering away from the design of their most successful and wide-reaching game to date in an attempt to gain more fans by mimicing other genres designs is them chasing the blonde as well. But I have no control over what Bioware does. Although, granted, I have no control over you. But I can say that you sitting there going "neiner, neiner, neiner, I got what I wanted, you all didn't" is probably not accurate, since you may find that in the long term, it isn't exactly what you wanted.
The reason for stating my position the way I do is to meet bitterness with enthusiasm in kind, because of the kind of cynicism that is taken for granted as being true that I'm bolding in your post.
What if it turns out that the alleged old fans weren't right all along, like they so regularly and confidently claim? What if it turns out gamers like me were who saw BioWare as evolving as storytellers from Day 1 were intuitively on the right track? What if tilting back towards DAO or Baldur's Gate would be the more cynical, "chasing the blonde" move? Would that change the dynamic at all? If someone can't imagine that possibly being true, then I need to be even more emphatic that people who disagree with your premise exist.
That isn't to say there aren't places where compromise could work, and I'm not closed off to it, but I've spent about two years here and participated in near-countless discussions, and if I'm sure of anything it's that the 3rd and 1st person playstyles are no longer compatible. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
I find the argument "Well, the MP is done by a different department/studio, so it won't eat into the resources of the SP campaign."
What kind of stupid logic is that? Is it being done by a team of leprachauns and unicorns, who work for sunshines and rainbows? Because otherwise I don't care if its done in house, out of house, under someone's house or a house on the moon... its costing money and time.
Palipride47 wrote...
But...it sounds like you are merely mad at old school RPGers of the pretentious sort, and if you think such things are incompatable, why not let us "alleged old fans" get a chance to explain how they might make it work, for ALL OF US.
I weep for Dead Space 3.breyant wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
The REAL reason they want to tack on multiplayer is because they think it will net them more money. Either through piracy-stopping measures like DRM or registration, or through microtransactions (or both), the company is seeing dollar signs, they aren't seeing a game feature. They are paying more money to put a shackles on the game's feet and are telling us its a pretty ankle bracelet.
Also EA says they HAVE to have multiplayer. Don't remember which guy said it but he seemed awfully proud that they're not making single-player games anymore.
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware steering away from the design of their most successful and wide-reaching game to date in an attempt to gain more fans by mimicing other genres designs is them chasing the blonde as well. But I have no control over what Bioware does. Although, granted, I have no control over you. But I can say that you sitting there going "neiner, neiner, neiner, I got what I wanted, you all didn't" is probably not accurate, since you may find that in the long term, it isn't exactly what you wanted.
The reason for stating my position the way I do is to meet bitterness with enthusiasm in kind, because of the kind of cynicism that is taken for granted as being true that I'm bolding in your post.
What if it turns out that the alleged old fans weren't right all along, like they so regularly and confidently claim? What if it turns out gamers like me were who saw BioWare as evolving as storytellers from Day 1 were intuitively on the right track? What if tilting back towards DAO or Baldur's Gate would be the more cynical, "chasing the blonde" move? Would that change the dynamic at all? If someone can't imagine that possibly being true, then I need to be even more emphatic that people who disagree with your premise exist.
That isn't to say there aren't places where compromise could work, and I'm not closed off to it, but I've spent about two years here and participated in near-countless discussions, and if I'm sure of anything it's that the 3rd and 1st person playstyles are no longer compatible. I'd love to be proven wrong.
MorningBird wrote...
DG:[/b]
I'll say this much: when the original thread was up, I asked the rest of the team what they remembered of the original game, and we all agreed that "atheism" was not something we'd ever supported as a viewpoint for the PC. And by supported, I mean something that-- whenever the topic arose-- we would make sure we included it as an option. Anything we consider "supported" is something we would make sure to maintain consistently throughout the game... that's a design term we take seriously.
Yes, there was indeed the occasional dialogue option to express it-- something you guys obviously remember better than we do (writing something over six years will definitely do that, let me tell you). I don't know if we would consider that "supported" as I defined above, but you're correct that it definitely pops up. Probably because, at the time, such an option seemed appropriate, and I wouldn't have a problem with that even now.
The part where I get stuck, and am clearly quite poor at expressing the exact point where my support for this idea breaks down, is where "atheism" stops being "I doubt that the Maker actually exists" to being some kind of political view... as atheism often is in the modern world. More secularization than atheism, really. There's a strong streak of anti-religious organization present here on the forums, and when the topic is broached it seemed to be done in the sense of "I should be allowed to go on a crusade against all religion", which is really the thing that I believe is out of place in our setting. Being able to occasionally express doubt, sure... but in order to make such a view supported we would need to provide a full path for such a stance.
The forums being what they are, they will automatically interpret that as in only the extreme opposite must then be the truth-- I'll never be able to express ANYTHING anti-religious and therefore must myself BE RELIGIOUS OMG!... which of course is simply not so, but I guess if you intend to freak out about it go ahead and get it out of your system.
And that's as far as I'll go on that topic. Thanks.
Link (may involve some scrolling)
I'd pay specific attention to that third paragraph. DG never says that the PC HAS to play as a devote Andrastian, merely that Atheism as we[/i] know it[/i] is unlikely to exist in Thedas. It is still possible to express doubt/uncertainty in the Maker, Andraste, and Chantry.
As for Hawke shouting, 'Maker!' as a battle cry (or something to that effect) during combat, well, I'm not at all religious, but I still say, 'God dammit' five times a day... >>
Palipride47 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Have you never heard of Obsidian Entertainment? They're a pretty established studio. Admittedly, it is kind of unbelievable that all of the leading lights of RPG design in the 90s are working together under one roof, but they were all working together in the 90s, too. They basically reformed Black Isle Studios when they brought in Tim Cain last year. They are legit as heck.
THEY KEEP DRAGGIN ME BACK!!!!
I'm more concerned about "hype vs. reality." Bioware colored me jaded.
Upsettingshorts wrote...
When you strip the statements of all context, ignore the lines I've drawn, and pretend not to be following along they sure do.
As if somehow the point was the propositional content rather than the myriad of attitudes.
LobselVith8 wrote...
The option for The Warden to say he didn't believe in the Maker was present in both Origins and Awakening. My Surana Warden said the Maker wasn't a deity he followed, condemned the Chantry over the Dales, told Leliana that Andraste was simply a woman, and informed Justice that he didn't believe in the Maker. I'd say atheism as we know it was present by virtue of being able to not believe in "god."
Furthermore, the player had to play a religious Andrastian with Hawke, who says he hopes the Maker guides Feynriel (who believes in the Creators) and believes Leandra is with the Maker.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Chasing the blonde refers to going after a high risk, high reward goal. If many people go for it, only one can win and even that one can fail themselves, since it is a high risk proposition.
Going after the designs of DA:O or BG is the safe choice - the games have huge fanbases, they are crticially acclaimed as some of the best RPGs in the history of RPGs and are still talked about regularly as pivotal when discussing the history of video games.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Going after the designs of other genres outside of RPGs, trying to break ground on making interactive cinema games (which have been a struggling, if not completely dead in the water, genre) and by trying to use action combat that violates the preferences of a portion of your fanbase and also pales in comparisson to actual action game titles, which other companies do immeasurably better, is the very definition of high risk.
Satyricon331 wrote...
Upsettingshorts wrote...
When you strip the statements of all context, ignore the lines I've drawn, and pretend not to be following along they sure do.As if somehow the point was the propositional content rather than the myriad of attitudes.
In fact, I've often liked many of your posts even though I think you sometimes are a bit harsh. I really didn't expect such a hysterical reaction to such an obviously silly joke. But hey, knock yourself out.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 11:24 .
breyant wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
The REAL reason they want to tack on multiplayer is because they think it will net them more money. Either through piracy-stopping measures like DRM or registration, or through microtransactions (or both), the company is seeing dollar signs, they aren't seeing a game feature. They are paying more money to put a shackles on the game's feet and are telling us its a pretty ankle bracelet.
Also EA says they HAVE to have multiplayer. Don't remember which guy said it but he seemed awfully proud that they're not making single-player games anymore.
“We are very proud of the way EA evolved with consumers,” he said. “I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365.“
“Let me clarify,” Gibeau began. “What I said was [about not greenlighting] anything that [doesn't have] an online service. You can have a very deep single-player game but it has to have an ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged beyond what’s on the initial disc. I’m not saying deathmatch must come to Mirror’s Edge.”Gibeau chuckled at his own example and continued to explain what the shape of EA’s game-making approach will be moving forward. “What I’m saying is if you’re going do it, do it with an open-world game that’s a connected experience where you can actually see other players, you can co-operate, you can compete and it can be social. Everything that we do, we see the telemetry coming in telling us that’s the best way to build our business and that’s the best way to build these experiences and be differentiated from others. Yeah, I’m not suggesting deathmatch must be in Bejeweled. It’s just… You need to have a connected social experience where you’re part of a large community”
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 21 octobre 2012 - 11:26 .
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
I find the argument "Well, the MP is done by a different department/studio, so it won't eat into the resources of the SP campaign."
What kind of stupid logic is that? Is it being done by a team of leprachauns and unicorns, who work for sunshines and rainbows? Because otherwise I don't care if its done in house, out of house, under someone's house or a house on the moon... its costing money and time.
What, and you assume that money and time would otherwise go to single player and not nothing else?
Have you ever seen a development budget for a game? I sure haven't. What kind of stupid logic is it to argue a point that relies on precisely that kind of knowledge?
WhiteThunder wrote...
Palipride47 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Palipride47 wrote...
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Palipride47 wrote...
I will diagree on the bolded point, in that it may be your play style, but not mine. If they can smush them together nicely (which I think DAO does) then, sure, I'm 100% for it.
If they can't, then I will relegate it to whatever they chose (and if I can't enjoy it with my more "old-school immersion" style, I'll stop).
Yeah but here's the thing.
Why is BioWare the one that has to deliver this approach, if - as Fast Jimmy says - DA2 is broadly the way BioWare wants to go whats stopping any of you guys from saying, "Oh well" and hopping over to Project Eternity/Wasteland 2? They could use the support.
I don't think Bioware has to do anything. I think it would be prudent to do so.
And if I cannot deal with it, I will leave, and I may be bitter about it, but I'm not going to pretend they did it because Bioware/EA/Gaider and Co. hates me specifically and are cackling as they count their piles of cash about how nicely they crushed the hopes of "old school RPGers."
And I won't pretend your style is less "legitimate" than mine. It stinks of nostalgia-based pretension that gives all old school RPGers a bad name. And i receive it even from others who play like me base on the priniciple that my parents had sex too late for me to play Ultima.
Well...you could flip it around too. A fanbase who has supported Bioware and bought their products since they started making games, suddenly gets alienated because Bioware now wants to make action games instead, but still claims they are making rpgs to make sure their old fanbase buys some.
But that is the nature of the gaming industry, and if we don't like it, we can take our money and go support Project Eternity (never mind that I think they are just throiwng old school RPG names around to make us quiver in our loins and throw our money at them <_<) or something else.
ME3 got the things they wanted when they yelled loud enough, but they yelled loudly enough with ONE VOICE. If our voices are so disparate, they are not going to abandon one base for another (now that they essentially have two, with some people, like me, caught in the middle)
Have you never heard of Obsidian Entertainment? They're a pretty established studio. Admittedly, it is kind of unbelievable that all of the leading lights of RPG design in the 90s are working together under one roof, but they were all working together in the 90s, too. They basically reformed Black Isle Studios when they brought in Tim Cain last year. They are legit as heck.
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Chasing the blonde refers to going after a high risk, high reward goal. If many people go for it, only one can win and even that one can fail themselves, since it is a high risk proposition.
Going after the designs of DA:O or BG is the safe choice - the games have huge fanbases, they are crticially acclaimed as some of the best RPGs in the history of RPGs and are still talked about regularly as pivotal when discussing the history of video games.
If the fanbases for that style of RPGs is so huge, how come the backers of Wasteland 2 and Project Eternity are only in the tens of thousands?
Furthermore, how well did DA:O sell compared to Mass Effect 2-3? (ME1 was 360 exclusive for a long time so it probly ought to be disqualified) I'm not sure.Fast Jimmy wrote...
Going after the designs of other genres outside of RPGs, trying to break ground on making interactive cinema games (which have been a struggling, if not completely dead in the water, genre) and by trying to use action combat that violates the preferences of a portion of your fanbase and also pales in comparisson to actual action game titles, which other companies do immeasurably better, is the very definition of high risk.
I don't believe that's what they're doing. I don't think "cinema games" as you describe them and "cinematic RPGs" are the same thing or ever really tried to be. My argument is that BioWare has, effectively, always been making cinematic RPGs only they're much better at it now having slowly progressed in that direction since BG2, to the point it's started to anger the people who played their games as traditional RPGs.Satyricon331 wrote...
Upsettingshorts wrote...
When you strip the statements of all context, ignore the lines I've drawn, and pretend not to be following along they sure do.
In fact, I've often liked many of your posts even though I think you sometimes are a bit harsh. I really didn't expect such a hysterical reaction to such an obviously silly joke. But hey, knock yourself out.
Specific argument aside, I think you're reading too much into my attitude. If I'm sometimes a bit harsh, why would more harshness be out of character?
That harshness comes from this, by the way.
Modifié par Palipride47, 21 octobre 2012 - 11:30 .
Emzamination wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
The option for The Warden to say he didn't believe in the Maker was present in both Origins and Awakening. My Surana Warden said the Maker wasn't a deity he followed, condemned the Chantry over the Dales, told Leliana that Andraste was simply a woman, and informed Justice that he didn't believe in the Maker. I'd say atheism as we know it was present by virtue of being able to not believe in "god."
Furthermore, the player had to play a religious Andrastian with Hawke, who says he hopes the Maker guides Feynriel (who believes in the Creators) and believes Leandra is with the Maker.
Whelp there goes that playthrough... *sigh*
Palipride47 wrote...
Project Eternity made 4 million dollars with 74,000 backers.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 octobre 2012 - 11:30 .
Retour en haut