567 réponses à ce sujet

[daft inquisitor]

To be fair, Bioware has had a LONG track record of basing their video games off of P&P games (Pen-and-Paper games, like Dungeons & Dragons). Baldur's gate 1&2 was AD&D, Neverwinter Nights 1&2 were D&D3.0, even Knights of the Old Republic's system was based (loosely) off of Wizards of the Coast's own Star Wars P&P game. In fact, Dragon Age was (I think) the first of their franchises that DIDN'T being as a P&P game (thought they turned right around and made one based on it anyway!).

I think it's kind of bred in their bones, and, honestly, that's what made me come to love Bioware to begin with. If they're really trying to break away from that mold more, like with DA2, well... I'm not going to ditch their games (I still liked DA2), but the company will come to mean something completely different to me.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 11 janvier 2013 - 03:28 .

[daft inquisitor]

EDIT: Double-post, sorry.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 11 janvier 2013 - 03:28 .

[In Exile]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

I think it's kind of bred in their bones, and, honestly, that's what made me come to love Bioware to begin with. If they're really trying to break away from that mold more, like with DA2, well... I'm not going to ditch their games (I still liked DA2), but the company will come to mean something completely different to me.

Bioware picked the most casual and generic of the P&P genre, however. If they wanted deep and engaging RP instead of casual and popular, it wouldn't have been D&D to start with.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Maria Caliban wrote...

calypsnex wrote...

Not to say there isn't a place for realism. I just don't trust everyone's motives when they start saying stuff like "what's wrong with generic?" How hard are you trying to justify this thing that you would suport mediocrity? 

I don't think being generic is the same as being mediocre.

The majority of Dragon Age and Origins is generic. Pseudo-medieval European fantasy world with elves, dwarves, and mages. Fighting demons, dragon, and mindless minions of evil. A combat system built around fighter, rogue, and magic-user. The 'save the world from an ancient evil' plot of Origins. Spending the majority of time doing errant, unconnected side-quests with a motley band.

I don't disagree that a lot of the narrative is broadly derived from genre conventions, but there is a difference between narrative and art style.

Skyrim's mainplot is generic/formulaic, but it has a full realized, well researched aesthetic. And sure you could argue that something inspired by anything in Europe is generic, but such a targeted, informed, and fully realized style (to me) is what distinguishes a good art style from a generic fantasy loaf (to borrow Upsettingshorts' magical term).

Maria Caliban wrote...

But honestly, I question how many people pick up a BioWare game for an innovate, unusual, or unique experience.

Maybe not innovative in all respects but unusual and unique? Hell yeah.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 05:32 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

All that New Vegas did was add dialogue. That was the only substantive difference from FO3. Other examples would the AC games with Ezio. But these were in the DA:A vein - more like fleshed out expansions than an actual honest-to-god new game. DA2 tried to be a new game, based on an old engine, in the timeframe of a major expansion.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Fallout New Vegas had about the same development cycle but they made a game that was superior in many ways to its predecessor and actually expanded features. They didn't try to re-invent the wheel, though.

All that New Vegas did was add dialogue. That was the only substantive difference from FO3. Other examples would the AC games with Ezio. But these were in the DA:A vein - more like fleshed out expansions than an actual honest-to-god new game. DA2 tried to be a new game, based on an old engine, in the timeframe of a major expansion.

FNV added tons of gameplay features- companion quests, factions, hardcore mode, expanded weaponry and crafting.  If anyone wants to maintain this isn't a valid comparison they're being disingenuous or in denial.  Obsidian left the already dated world and art assets mostly intact and concentrated on deepening RPG mechanics, branching quest lines, and solid world building.  While the game was not perfect, it was much better received than DA2 in the respective fanbases.

DA2 isn't an honest-to-god new game, either.  It would have been better as an expansion.  Or a codex entry.

Modifié par Addai67, 11 janvier 2013 - 05:58 .

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
All of the caves, dungeons, sewers, and outdoor enviroments whether it is the Wounded Coast, the Dalish Camp, Lothering, or random insipid sandy environment, are devoid of anything that would make them distinct, let alone remotely interesting (except for maybe the half-sunken ship that never changes in the seven years off the Wounded Coast).

Compared to DA:O caves and .... the sand that doesn't even exist? This isn't an argument about DA2 being good; it's about DA2 being better than DA:O. or at least trying to do more with a the visual imagery.

[Wulfram]

Which games is it DA:O looks too much alike?

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

 If anyone wants to maintain this isn't a valid comparison they're being disingenuous or in denial. 

Nah.

It's invalid because art style and "substance" are not in conflict, and FNV had two years of development.  

Your argument is little more than "I didn't like DA2 and things they changed are things I don't appreciate.  It would have been better for them to have changed it in ways I appreciate or not at all."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:03 .

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

DA2 isn't an honest-to-god new game, either.

In what way isn't it?

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Which games is it DA:O looks too much alike?

If it ripped off a single game, people wouldn't be calling it generic.  It would be called a ripoff of [game].

It's generic because it doesn't deviate from broad genre conventions in any consistent way, and the inconsistent ways in which it does deviate are all hideously awful.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Can we collectively stop acting like there's anything actually similar enough to compare the development of DA2 to? It's an outlier.

No matter what FNV did or didn't do, it had more time and a different agenda than DA2.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It would be called a ripoff of [game].

And they'd probably be wrong. People love to pick up on a single motif or theme or gimmick and extrapolate it to mean ITS EXACTLY THE SAME if another game shares that little thing.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:06 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It's invalid because art style and "substance" are not in conflict, and FNV had two years of development.

It didn't have 2 years of development.  Development started in February 2009 and the game came out October 2010.  DA2 had longer than the 11 months everyone keeps quoting, too.  We already went over this, but you can keep repeating it if you like.  I'm not the first one to make this comparison, either- others have done so as well in their critique of DA2.  The comparison is in what you do and don't try to do when you're forced to work on a curtailed development cycle.

@ Herr Uhl:  Do you really need to ask?  It was half-baked and stripped down.  Awakening had more replay value.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...
It didn't have 2 years of development.  Development started in February 2009 and the game came out October 2010.

People I know who worked on the game have said otherwise.

In fact, I just doublechecked. The answer is "no way."

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:13 .

[daft inquisitor]

In Exile wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

I think it's kind of bred in their bones, and, honestly, that's what made me come to love Bioware to begin with. If they're really trying to break away from that mold more, like with DA2, well... I'm not going to ditch their games (I still liked DA2), but the company will come to mean something completely different to me.

Bioware picked the most casual and generic of the P&P genre, however. If they wanted deep and engaging RP instead of casual and popular, it wouldn't have been D&D to start with.

I don't think there's much of an argument to be made there. The fact is that Bioware is one of the very few companies out there that have tried to take any P&P system and try to convert it into a computer RPG. I can think of about three others (Troika and Turbine, who both have converted D&D systems as well, and whoever did the VtM games).

It's not about the depth of the system, how generic it is, or how much they're pandering to casuality and popularity. It's the fact that they actually tried to use a deep system like a P&P one in a computer game.

Also, depth in P&P games is HIGHLY subjective. Saying D&D is essentially rubbish just because it's one of the more popular systems is a crappy way of stating things, IMO.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:11 .

[KarshKaIe]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
If you aren't referring to graphics, then why do you keep posting pictures of low-resolution non-interactable NPCs in DA2?

If you're going to compare one to the other, it's the best of the best, or the worst of the worst. Comparing the best of one to the worst of the other is just being dishonest.

Perhaps it was just a response to your angry outburst of pictures presenting the poor graphics of Origins:

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Oh, an art style discussion!

No wait, it's just a bunch of cherrypicked screenshots and people throwing about terms they don't understand. I can play too!

I miss these gloriously colorful environments:


Amazing realism:


Beautiful lighting:


Colorful environments:


Absolutely gorgeous.


And those little touches! The award for most brilliant use of fish in decor goes to...


Truly an artistic masterpiece, the style of which should be emulated for decades to come.



All images stolen shamelessly from psdo's recent replay of DAO.

Edit: In before "STILL BETTER LOOKING THAN DA2!!!"

Hypocrite.

I saw nothing from EJiD originally arguing about the graphics from both games before you came in. He posted comparisons of the Deep Roads from both games on page 2. It's you who started the low-resolution graphic debate when it had nothing to do with this topic.

I must conclude that you are a troll.

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Nice going covering up your tracks.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some beer I need to extract from a baron....

[Xewaka]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made there. The fact is that Bioware is one of the very few companies out there that have tried to take any P&P system and try to convert it into a computer RPG. I can think of about three others (Troika and Turbine, who both have converted D&D systems as well, and whoever did the VtM games).
It's not about the depth of the system, how generic it is, or how much they're pandering to casuality and popularity. It's the fact that they actually tried to use a deep system like a P&P one in a computer game.
Also, depth in P&P games is HIGHLY subjective. Saying D&D is essentially rubbish just because it's popular and one of the more popular systems is a crappy way of stating things, IMO.

I'd argue that depth in P&P comes not from the rules but from the setting. Granted, most settings will have its own ruleset that subtly reinforces the "feel" of the setting, and while it is true some settings did lose something in translation during the craze of the OGL (such as Rokugan and Call of Cthulhu D20), it has, again, more to do with what tone/themes the mechanics of the game reinforce.

[upsettingshorts]

Well I'm stuck, as the BioWare developer whose blog I used to quote for the 10-11 months of development no longer exists. But that doesn't mean it stops being true, it just means I can't convince any new people I guess.

Addai67 wrote...

It was half-baked and stripped down.

If that's the case, then Origins was horribly overcooked then covered with nasty sauce.  Mmm... burned fantasy loaf.

@KarshKaIe:  If you actually read what hoorayforicecream captioned each image with, it'd be obvious to you each screenshot was commenting on the art, not the graphics. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:14 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
FNV added tons of gameplay features- companion quests

That isn't different in substance. Tha's like saying DA2 added new features by having quests. FNV also had a main quest, but that doesn't count as a new feature.

What did this really add - more RP options, more dialogue, more conversations. More journal entries. Better designed vaults.

factions, 

They did have a faction mechanic. And I'm sure scripting was brutal. But that's the core of what it was was dialogue and RP - you say it yourself when you say it gave you deeper RP options.

hardcore mode

And how resource intensive do you believe that was?

, expanded weaponry and crafting. 

I honestly can't recall the difference in crafting between FO3 and NV. This is entirely by bad and I'm biting the bullet on it.

If anyone wants to maintain this isn't a valid comparison they're being disingenuous or in denial. 

Maintain it is a valid comparison is being in denial. What NV set out to do was very different than what DA:O did. FO3 took the same combat scheme (Third Person Shooter with VATS), the same style of gameplay (no cinematics), the same approach to dialogue (no PC VO), and added more scripting and dialogue as part of its core.

I'm not trying to minimize the job that Obsdian did on NV or that it was a lot of work. But what NV set out to do to make it different from FO3 was not was DA2 tried to do.

Obsidian left the already dated world and art assets mostly intact and concentrated on deepening RPG mechanics, branching quest lines, and solid world building.  While the game was not perfect, it was much better received than DA2 in the respective fanbases.

Did I deny any of this? All I am saying is that what Bioware set out to do is very different from what Obsidian set out to do, and acting as if they were doing the same thing is silly. Even if you think that Bioware should have done what Obsidian did, they didn't. And comparing the time they took is silly, therefore.

DA2 isn't an honest-to-god new game, either.  It would have been better as an expansion.  Or a codex entry.

You'll note I said trying to be a new game.

Just how isn't DA2 trying to be a new game? They changed the combat mechanic radically, they changed the art style, they changed the player's interaction with the game world (PC VO, tone indicators) ... what DAII tried to be was not DA:Kirkwall, like New Vegas was "Fallout 3: New Vegas", but something totally different.

[Addai]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
It didn't have 2 years of development.  Development started in February 2009 and the game came out October 2010.

People I know who worked on the game have said otherwise.

This is from an interview with Josh Sawyer.

Even supposing DA2 had less time, all the more reason that you don't make sweeping changes that might make the design team feel better but which not only don't add anything substantive to the player experience, they force you to entirely drop features and cut corners on others.  And then charge even more for the game than you did for DAO (for PC players).

I know that the two teams had different agendas- that's the point.

[In Exile]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made there. The fact is that Bioware is one of the very few companies out there that have tried to take any P&P system and try to convert it into a computer RPG.

What? All of the so-called great RPGs of that period are just variants of D&D. Planecape, IWD... these are all D&D games.

It's not about the depth of the system, how generic it is, or how much they're pandering to casuality and popularity. It's the fact that they actually tried to use a deep system like a P&P one in a computer game.

You're using this as an analysis into their motive. That's the issue. Bioware was never the company you think it was.

Also, depth in P&P games is HIGHLY subjective. Saying D&D is essentially rubbish just because it's one of the more popular systems is a crappy way of stating things, IMO.

I didn't say it was rubbish. I said that it was picked because it was popular, and the aim for Bioware was to cash in.

[daft inquisitor]

Xewaka wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made there. The fact is that Bioware is one of the very few companies out there that have tried to take any P&P system and try to convert it into a computer RPG. I can think of about three others (Troika and Turbine, who both have converted D&D systems as well, and whoever did the VtM games).
It's not about the depth of the system, how generic it is, or how much they're pandering to casuality and popularity. It's the fact that they actually tried to use a deep system like a P&P one in a computer game.
Also, depth in P&P games is HIGHLY subjective. Saying D&D is essentially rubbish just because it's popular and one of the more popular systems is a crappy way of stating things, IMO.

I'd argue that depth in P&P comes not from the rules but from the setting. Granted, most settings will have its own ruleset that subtly reinforces the "feel" of the setting, and while it is true some settings did lose something in translation during the craze of the OGL (such as Rokugan and Call of Cthulhu D20), it has, again, more to do with what tone/themes the mechanics of the game reinforce.

That's a fair point, and I could see arguments both ways over it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that my original point is that very few companies even try P&P-to-CRPG conversions. Bioware was the first to really try it, they cut their teeth on doing it, and now that they're doing something new and (by all appearances) trying to distance themselves from their Origins (ha!), then the company is taking a turn I don't really care for, personally. But, I still like their current games regardless.

Modifié par ShadowDragoonFTW, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

@ Herr Uhl:  Do you really need to ask?  It was half-baked and stripped down.  Awakening had more replay value.

This does not make it "not a new game". The plot was entirely new, the combat system was changed, the atheistic was changed, the dialog system was changed and the approval system was changed (among other things).

That should suffice to differentiate it from DAO. If your argument is that it is too bad to be called a game, that is just a silly argument.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Even supposing DA2 had less time, all the more reason that you don't make sweeping changes that might make the design team feel better but which not only don't add anything substantive to the player experience, they force you to entirely drop features and cut corners on others. 

We get it.

Your argument is that BioWare should have made another game they hate because you'd have liked it more.

Okay.

You're still deciding what's "substantive" to you is all that matters.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:17 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

I know that the two teams had different agendas- that's the point.

They had different agendas because they were making completely different games.

Nothing would have enabled Bioware to make a jaw-dropping game in 11 months. Not even if they had kept all the old systems and art, and even then, given that their most pressing interest was redoing the art and updating the combat, they'd have been spinning their wheels and making a game they all hated looking at anyway, AND would STILL be redoing the art and combat.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:20 .