Ce sujet est fermé
ibbikiookami wrote...
Its way to easy to wander around for days before you find real purpose.
I don't agree with you on that, exploration is optional. You can even just do the main quest only.
Modifié par Maria Caliban, 09 avril 2013 - 05:28 .
Maria Caliban wrote...
ibbikiookami wrote...
Its way to easy to wander around for days before you find real purpose.
I don't agree with you on that, exploration is optional. You can even just do the main quest only.
Playing Skyrim and not exploring is like playing Dragon Age and not talking to any of your companions. You can do it, but doing so removes a large chunk of content you're expected to experience.
Then you obviously have not read their opinion about the games they created and why. There's a pax sometime ago where David Gaider, Ken Levine and Chris Avellone attend. Google for it.EntropicAngel wrote...
Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
They're are the same from the perspective of gamers who create a game for gamers. You could ask people like Brent Knowless or Chris Avellone. Only a storyteller who love to control the the player's experience in a straight line and people who love to be controlled would think otherwise.
That's a silly statement, and packed with more emotional statements than arguments.
Tell me why a paragon Shepard or Renegade or Diplomatic Hawke or Humorous Hawke or Aggresive is not a preset character. Because to me that's exactly who they are. Paragon or Renegade or Diplomatic or Humorous or Aggressive character.EntropicAngel wrote...
1. There is no such thing as YOU in story driven games. There is only preset characters design by the developers which are nothing more than a puppet played by the developers themselves. Sheppard is Preset paragon or renegade characters. Hawke is preset subtle or humorous or aggresive character. BioWare doesn't acknowledge anything else in this two stories. There is no YOU.
2. You don't have much control in story driven games compare to open world and sand box games, therefore it's a moot point. You or your character don't exist in a story driven video game. You're led to believe that you have the control but you don't. You merely ride along the coaster to the end specified by the writers, which is why it's sucked big time.
1. I disagree. Shepard was not a preset character, nor was Hawke.
It's more than pushing the button to play a movie or flipping pages of a novel, I agree. Still it play out exactly the same. So why bother?EntropicAngel wrote...
2. It's more control than you have in a novel or a movie.
EntropicAngel wrote...
Really? Then do tell me what are those improvement?
ME3's story about the conflict between synthetic and organic life. DA ]['s story about the incidental rise of a champion.
Both are improvements over "Big bad appears with army, spend game gathering allies and trying to stop him!"
Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 avril 2013 - 05:59 .
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Modifié par M25105, 09 avril 2013 - 06:26 .
M25105 wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Miyamoto didn't want to make New Super Mario Bros. Wii, but instead more Mario galaxy games. And look what sold more, despite the fact that the galaxy games were his pet project. Even if you combine both galaxy games it still can't reach the numbers of New Super Mario Bros. Wii. People had been waiting 18 years for a game they wanted, and weren't satisfied cause Nintendo tried to make games that tried to be awesome and what the developers thought were cool.
Your job as the developers is to make us the players buy your games so we can feel awesome. We're not here to buy games because you're awesome.
Do you approve for example when the game constantly takes the player out of the game such as in Max Payne 3, or any of the modern military shooters singleplayer campaigns, where we constantly get interrupted by scripted events, cause the devs wants us to see random cool explosion number 6 or do quick time events?
Please excuse my English by the way, it's far from fluent.
I legitimately think that game is awful. I can't even name one character in that game, except for Triss or whatever her name is, after playing 1 and a half game. The story is boring, the main character is dreadful, hideous and a complete douche. Yet he gets treated like a god by the women in the game. It's a degrading, badly written RPG. I'm sorry I expressed it in a way that doesn't suit you. I'll try to do better next time.Dave of Canada wrote...
Kyuhyun wrote...
I'm a troll for thinking The Witcher sucks?
No, you're a troll by how you present yourself. Don't try to make it so obvious.
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Dear Bioware,Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
Rawgrim wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Correct. "Art is not a democracy" - George R.R. Martin
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Correct. "Art is not a democracy" - George R.R. Martin
And games aren't art.
Rawgrim wrote...
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Correct. "Art is not a democracy" - George R.R. Martin
And games aren't art.
Storytelling is an artform. Story driven video games = storytelling.
EntropicAngel wrote...
M25105 wrote...
People aren't fond of the scenery porn that Skyrim did, huh? Just detecting some mild hostility towards a game that sold over 11 million copies, which you know, is a pretty good thing. Cue the CoD hatred that follows.
Lol, what? Skyrim is more like Call of Duty than either The Witcher or any Bioware game, ever.
Hint: Twitch gameplay.
And you may be getting hostility because Skyrim is a mile wide and an inch deep, while Bioware games (and TW1 for the matter--don't know about TW2 yet) are built upon solid dialog and characters and plot.
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Correct. "Art is not a democracy" - George R.R. Martin
And games aren't art.
Storytelling is an artform. Story driven video games = storytelling.
No it's still a game. A sophisticated toy meant for entertainment. Storytelling games at it's core is like a small manuel you get with your He-Man action figure.
Gamers just want videogames to labeled as art, so it seems more sophisticated.
Sutekh wrote...
Dear Bioware,Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
We want a game that resemble Skyrim, the Witcher 2, but also Baldur's Gates and Planescape Torment. We want our protagonist silent, but they must have a voice. We want fast and spectacular combat, a long as it's slow, realistic and tactical. We want to see the Warden and Hawke, but they shouldn't be ever seen again. We want a Kossith LI, and Morrigan, and Leliana, and Cullen, but we don't want romance. We want respawn, but the area we've crossed should be cleared forever. We want to be Orlesian, Antivan, Fereldan, Nevarran and Tevinter
This, Bioware, is what we want. Be a good company. Make it happen.
Rawgrim wrote...
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Correct. "Art is not a democracy" - George R.R. Martin
And games aren't art.
Storytelling is an artform. Story driven video games = storytelling.
No it's still a game. A sophisticated toy meant for entertainment. Storytelling games at it's core is like a small manuel you get with your He-Man action figure.
Gamers just want videogames to labeled as art, so it seems more sophisticated.
The story is told through the game.
Look at planescape torment, for example. All the dialgoe options in it equalls a 5000 page novel.
Happy trolling.
EntropicAngel wrote...
M25105 wrote...
People aren't fond of the scenery porn that Skyrim did, huh? Just detecting some mild hostility towards a game that sold over 11 million copies, which you know, is a pretty good thing. Cue the CoD hatred that follows.
Lol, what? Skyrim is more like Call of Duty than either The Witcher or any Bioware game, ever.
Hint: Twitch gameplay.
And you may be getting hostility because Skyrim is a mile wide and an inch deep, while Bioware games (and TW1 for the matter--don't know about TW2 yet) are built upon solid dialog and characters and plot.
Sutekh wrote...
Dear Bioware,Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
We want a game that resemble Skyrim, the Witcher 2, but also Baldur's Gates and Planescape Torment. We want our protagonist silent, but they must have a voice. We want fast and spectacular combat, a long as it's slow, realistic and tactical. We want to see the Warden and Hawke, but they shouldn't be ever seen again. We want a Kossith LI, and Morrigan, and Leliana, and Cullen, but we don't want romance. We want respawn, but the area we've crossed should be cleared forever. We want to be Orlesian, Antivan, Fereldan, Nevarran and Tevinter
This, Bioware, is what we want. Be a good company. Make it happen.
Guest_Erik Lehnsherr_*
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
M25105 wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...
M25105 wrote...
xyzmkrysvr wrote...
Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.
Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.
When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you.
Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want.
(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)
Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.
First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement. From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons. If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love. If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people. I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay" So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.
In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.
Who is "we". On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread. Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)
Correct. "Art is not a democracy" - George R.R. Martin
And games aren't art.
Storytelling is an artform. Story driven video games = storytelling.
No it's still a game. A sophisticated toy meant for entertainment. Storytelling games at it's core is like a small manuel you get with your He-Man action figure.
Gamers just want videogames to labeled as art, so it seems more sophisticated.
The story is told through the game.
Look at planescape torment, for example. All the dialgoe options in it equalls a 5000 page novel.
Happy trolling.
So? It doesn't change the fact that if I want, I'll just have the character run against a wall five hours straight and not do anything. The story is told if you care about it, if you don't you just press escape. Just like if you care about the story when you buy an action figure.
Keep thinking I'm trolling then.
Maria Caliban wrote...
Mass Effect 3 was BioWare's best selling game. If BioWare really wants to cater to the fans, they should stop making Dragon Age games and focus on the franchise that's raking in the bucks.
Maria Caliban wrote...
Mass Effect 3 was BioWare's best selling game. If BioWare really wants to cater to the fans, they should stop making Dragon Age games and focus on the franchise that's raking in the bucks.
Modifié par Annie_Dear, 09 avril 2013 - 07:34 .
Modifié par M25105, 09 avril 2013 - 07:40 .
Retour en haut