575 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

DA2 did lose some of that old game feeling but I didn't think it was that different than DAO. Watching PC actions is probably better than just combat that you probably find in other games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's a game that has fantastic replayability, combined with strategy and even roleplaying elements.  I would rather play a game like Crusader Kings than a game like Oblivion, because i enjoy it more.  It's why I own Crusader Kings 2, but not Skyrim (though I hear Skyrim is much better than Oblivion).

Skyrim is vastly better than Oblivion.

I own both Skyrim and Crusader Kings II.  Paradox makes excellent games.

The unfortunate thing about Skyrim, however, is that it's absurdly successful on the consoles as well, where modding is much, much more difficult to do (if even possible).

It's possible.  It's always possible.

Skyrim's success could very well be more heavily influenced by the fact that it's a good game that delivered a lot on what people wanted.  I'd be surprised if its sales would not still be exceptional if the game didn't have a toolset.

This surprises me (though it appears you are correct).  First, I don't think I'd enjoy Skyrim much at all if I couldn't mod it.  The TES games, because they are so big, really do benefit from being tweaked to suit each player's preferences, both because it's unlikely that Bethesda's design choices will match each player's preferences each step of the way through such a large game, and because Bethesda's level of polish isn't typically excellent, so the games are often quite buggy.

Being able to mod the UI, or the magic system, or what specific skills do, is hugely valuable in improving the reach of the game.  While I'm aware that console players seem to have really liked Skyrim, I find that very odd.

Further, it's not like BioWare is a company that is completely clueless to toolset usage for games either.  Two games were released with a toolset (one with the core feature surrounding the toolset itself, even).

This is certainly true.  I'd like you to do it again.  Possibly every time.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...


Who the heck is Qistina to annoit anyone a "real" fan of Bioware because they like a particular subset of their games?  Look, I really didn't like DA2 and much prefer their older titles, but I don't have the audacity to claim that I'm somehow more of a "real" fan.  And who is she to claim I can't be a "real" fan of TES because I love Skyrim and think Oblivion blows?  Why is Morrowind the watershed for "real" TES when it is the 3rd major title in the series?  By that logic, isn't the Black Album "real" Metallica?

I'm guessing it's half-baked Platonism. There's some sort of true essence of a TES game, a Metallica song, etc., and the "real fans" are the ones who understand those Forms and can determine whether a game deviates from them.

Pretty much this. I guess you could say their true essence is "interactive narrative", but even that seems strange given Shattered Steel, not to mention how different quite a few of their games with interactive narrative have been.

[ArcaneJTM]

cJohnOne wrote...

DA2 did lose some of that old game feeling but I didn't think it was that different than DAO. Watching PC actions is probably better than just combat that you probably find in other games.

It lost more than that.  One of the core reasons I enjoyed DA:O so much, as well as TES for that matter, was because it's more like a traditional RPG in that the story is about you.  You are the warden, recently inducted into the order, out to bring an end to the coming blight.  You decide where the story goes and how it all plays out.  It's your story.

Then we get DA2, supposedly the sequal as implied by the big 2 in the title, and your story is now abandoned in favor of one about some jerk named Lawke or Bawke or somesuch told to us by a hairy chested dwarf given to exageration.  That's a pretty drastic change.  Might be an ok game on it's own, but as a sequal it falls well short of the bar set by the original.

[Il Divo]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

DA2 did lose some of that old game feeling but I didn't think it was that different than DAO. Watching PC actions is probably better than just combat that you probably find in other games.

It lost more than that.  One of the core reasons I enjoyed DA:O so much, as well as TES for that matter, was because it's more like a traditional RPG in that the story is about you.  You are the warden, recently inducted into the order, out to bring an end to the coming blight.  You decide where the story goes and how it all plays out.  It's your story.

Then we get DA2, supposedly the sequal as implied by the big 2 in the title, and your story is now abandoned in favor of one about some jerk named Lawke or Bawke or somesuch told to us by a hairy chested dwarf given to exageration.  That's a pretty drastic change.  Might be an ok game on it's own, but as a sequal it falls well short of the bar set by the original.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we needed to have the Warden back? Because his story was completed, dark ritual aside, and DA2 certainly wouldn't be the first sequel or even the first good sequel to follow a different narrative. See KotOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout 2 (from what I've heard), etc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mai 2013 - 01:56 .

[ArcaneJTM]

Il Divo wrote...

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that we needed to have the Warden back? Because his story was completed, dark ritual aside, and DA2 certainly wouldn't be the first sequel or even the first good sequel to follow a different narrative. See KotOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout 2 (from what I've heard), etc.

No, it didn't necessarilly have to be the Warden.  It's more of a point of view thing in how the story is told.  You watched Hawke.  You were the Warden.  It's the difference between being a Starfleet captain and watching Captain Kirk.

One thing that really got on my nerves when I was looking for an alternatative to CoH was when one of the devs for Marvel Heroes was asked about players creating their own heroes.  His answer was, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "Why would you want to be Captain Firepants when you could be Spider Man?"  It displayed a complete lack of understanding in just what he was being asked.  "Captain Firepants" is my persona.  He is me, in other words.  Spider Man is a hero, sure, but also a total stranger.  A lot of people would rather play as their own hero than one created and established by someone else.

Does that help clear up my position on the subject?

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 26 mai 2013 - 02:18 .

[AlanC9]

It would if I understood why you think it to be the case. Care to elaborate?

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 mai 2013 - 03:52 .

[cJohnOne]

I was thinking that the sheer amount of dialogue was higher in DA2 than other games. I'm not sure how it compares to DAO where the companions commented a lot though.

[Saiphas85]

On this discussion I think I kind of understand what you mean JTM. Your essentially saying that in DAO you played a character with a title (and was addressed solely by that title or by pronouns) while in DA2, you played as a named and referenced character (Hawke). In essence, even though the Warden had a preset last name, it was irrelevant because you could inject yourself and suspend disbelief since that person was referred to as the Warden.

[Realmzmaster]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I have no idea what a real fan is? If a company is going to bring new blood into the genre then it has to make a game that appeals both to that new audience while retaining the audience it already has. That is never an easy task. Bethesda pulled it off with Skyrim.

Bioware tried and according to many gamers failed with DA2. Hopefully DA3 will be the game that is the breakthrough for Bioware. Just appealing to the old audience is not going to work alone. There is a limited number of sales in that audience. That audience may be able to sustain a kickstarter project or a smaller independent, but not a division the size of Bioware. Numbers generate profit. Without profit no company. 

I do not believe in this.
You can't increase your sales by changing a game to "also appeal to a new, different audience". I'm completely convinced that sort of reasoning is absolute nonsense.

What the big selling franchises, like Call of Duty, and TES,  have done, is not that at all. They have increased their audience by letting more people discover them. It's that simple.

DA2 failed to do the same for Dragon Age because it's no longer the same kind of game. There's a lot that has changed. Art direction, player agency, player char agency, mood and atmosphere, linearity, style of combat and animations, party customization, character customization, emergent narrative being replaced by framed narrative. In DA2 the player watches the PC's actions, emotions and reactions, in DA:O the player controls it. Basically, a WRPG has become a JRPG.

A lot of differenses that make it a completely different game-genre. Why would it appeal to all old fans? No reason. More likely that a lot will be angry because the franchise they liked has been corrupted to something they may even despise.

How do you explain the jump in sales between Oblivion and Skyrim. Let's use VGChartz numbers as a starting point.

                            Oblivion                                Skyrim
X-Box                  3.98                                       7.20
PS3                     2.81                                       4.58
PC                          .16                                      2.86

The numbers on the consoles almost double. The numbers on the PC are roughly 18 times. So you are telling me Bethesda did not change something in the game from Oblivion to Skyrim to appeal to a newer audience while retaining enough of the old  stuff to hang on to their older fanbase?

[Realmzmaster]

I do not know about other gamers but I roleplay a character. As I have stated before there are two ways to roleplay. One is to roleplay oneself as the character. The other is to set into a role and play that. I have no problem doing either one and enjoying each. I can roleplay myself as the warden or step into the role as Hawke and play that. I then tweak the character using the tone. The dominant tone usually works fine depending on which Hawke I choose to be. But, YMMV.

[jaydip1985]

I hope the graphics are better in DA:I.It was lackluster in DA 2.Bioware honestly need a strong tech team, it is their weakest point.

[ArcaneJTM]

Saiphas85 wrote...

On this discussion I think I kind of understand what you mean JTM. Your essentially saying that in DAO you played a character with a title (and was addressed solely by that title or by pronouns) while in DA2, you played as a named and referenced character (Hawke). In essence, even though the Warden had a preset last name, it was irrelevant because you could inject yourself and suspend disbelief since that person was referred to as the Warden.

Eh, sortof. There's a whole lot more to it than title v.s. name, but if that helps get the idea across, I'll go with it.

The thing is, Hawke was pretty much already defined when you started playing. The story much more linear and restricted. The Warden, in large part, was not. It's Spider Man v.s. "Captain Firepants". Would you want to be Spider Man, a.k.a. Peter Parker, shooting webs from your wrist, climbing buildings, photographer, kinda nerdy, etc. Or would you rather be *insert name*, *insert title*, *insert powers*, *insert day job*, *insert background*? A creation that is all your own. They can be placed in the same situation, but one is a whole different experience from the other, and the more the game narrative can take advantage of that, the more immersive it can become. It takes a bit more outside the box thinking from the writers, but it's well worth it IMO.

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 26 mai 2013 - 05:58 .

[In Exile]

ArcaneJTM wrote...
It lost more than that.  One of the core reasons I enjoyed DA:O so much, as well as TES for that matter, was because it's more like a traditional RPG in that the story is about you.  You are the warden, recently inducted into the order, out to bring an end to the coming blight.  You decide where the story goes and how it all plays out.  It's your story.

I do? My favourite parts are when I decided to make the tactical choice and abandon Ferelden, or when I introduced the Cousland dynasty at the Landsmeet by having them denounce Alistair and Anora both. 

[In Exile]

ArcaneJTM wrote...
A creation that is all your own. They can be placed in the same situation, but one is a whole different experience from the other, and the more the game narrative can take advantage of that, the more immersive it can become. It takes a bit more outside the box thinking from the writers, but it's well worth it IMO.

Give me five examples when DA:O does something that DA2 doesn't that somehow has an in-game reaction to a made up biography. 

[ArcaneJTM]

jaydip1985 wrote...

I hope the graphics are better in DA:I.It was lackluster in DA 2.Bioware honestly need a strong tech team, it is their weakest point.

Yeah, I was a little taken aback at how cartoony DA2 was compared to DA:O the first time I played it.  The darkspawn especially.

[jaydip1985]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

jaydip1985 wrote...

I hope the graphics are better in DA:I.It was lackluster in DA 2.Bioware honestly need a strong tech team, it is their weakest point.

Yeah, I was a little taken aback at how cartoony DA2 was compared to DA:O the first time I played it.  The darkspawn especially.

Indeed.I hope they will be able to harness the true potential of the next gen consoles and we pc gamers won't be left in the dark.

[cJohnOne]

Well I think the monster designs looked bad but that isn't graphics.

[ArcaneJTM]

Exile, obviously there are certain technical limitations preventing implementation of absolutely every possible decision that every individual player could possibly come up with. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that the game is no longer an RPG.  Nor does it mean that developers shouldn't at least try to impliment as much variation as they can without total meltdown of the overall narative.

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 26 mai 2013 - 06:23 .

[Boycott Bioware]

AlanC9 wrote...

Qistina wrote...
Okay, i don't know if you, mr Allan Schumacher, seeing the relevance of what i post above, i just stress out that what make real fans are real is the identity, what they love is your identity. Fans only love the current product, real fans love you as you were.

So a "real fan" is someone who likes some particular game in a series and doesn't like the later ones if they're any different? Or if they're different in a way he doesn't like?

So a real BG fan thinks that BG2's overland map is a bad idea, for instance? Well, I have read this sort of thing a lot.

Alright, to make it clear, i give Michael Jackson example again.

Michael Jacson started with Jackson 5, and then he going solo. Michael Jackson is actually "ancient" yet he survive in how many generation? 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000...and then he died got murdered.

Yes Michael Jackson changes in appearance, he also add new element in his music, but his music is his music, that never changed. His style, his dance moves, his "oooouch!" thing, his "whooooaaaah huuuuuuu!!!" thing, his crotch grabbing and shooting hand symbolism never changed. All these things he do is what the fans loved it, the old fans, the new fans, the "new born" fans, of all times, all love him

We never hear "Michael Jackson is not Michael jackson anymore", we never hear complaint about Michael Jackson changing genre, changing style, changing identity. The fans never hate his work. It is because he maintain his identity, even though he improvise his moves, way of singing, fashion and all but his identity remain and that make him unique. he have his identity and that identity makes his fans, old and new, love him

People who hate him not because of his work, but because of his crisis, his legal cases and so on, the media bashing on him, it is true in USA, but outside USA his fans don't care at all about it, outside USA Michael Jackson is No 1.

My point is, no one hate his work. That is the most excellent example on art and being an artist. No matter how people hate you, no matter how people despise you, but people don't hate your work, people love your work, people love your work because you being true to yourself.... that is most important

In front of us he being our "Michael Jackson", the identity he created, the identity that we accept it from the begining, and the identity that live with him from 70s to 80s, 90s, 2000, 2010...and forever....

R.I.P MJ...i love you so much.....

[ElitePinecone]

Saiphas85 wrote...

On this discussion I think I kind of understand what you mean JTM. Your essentially saying that in DAO you played a character with a title (and was addressed solely by that title or by pronouns) while in DA2, you played as a named and referenced character (Hawke). In essence, even though the Warden had a preset last name, it was irrelevant because you could inject yourself and suspend disbelief since that person was referred to as the Warden.

It's an interesting question, from a storyteling perspective: what makes people attached to the player-protagonist?

As in, anecdotally I've seen people get much more attached to Shepard than to Hawke, even though functionally and for all intents and purposes they have the same mechanics (a dialogue wheel, set background, human, voiced character). Does it relate to player agency in the wider story, or did dialogue give Shepard a bigger chance to feel unique and player-defined?

I mean, Shepard *was* a surname, and Hawke even had a title (for a third of the game, anyway, and in most marketing materials) - what was it about the characters that led to those different reactions? 

Even personally, I felt that the Warden who I played through DAO, Awakening, Golems of Amgarrak and Witch Hunt was "my" individual Warden, and Shepard was indisputably a unique character I'd created, but I really struggeld to feel that same sense of attachment to Hawke. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 26 mai 2013 - 06:29 .

[ArcaneJTM]

I had a similar experience ElitePinecone.  I had a much easier time stepping into the role of Shepard than Hawke.  Right up until the very end of ME3 of course, but I'll leave that alone. 

[Fredward]

Qistina wrote...

Alright, to make it clear, i give Michael Jackson example again.

Michael Jacson started with Jackson 5, and then he going solo. Michael Jackson is actually "ancient" yet he survive in how many generation? 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000...and then he died got murdered.

Yes Michael Jackson changes in appearance, he also add new element in his music, but his music is his music, that never changed. His style, his dance moves, his "oooouch!" thing, his "whooooaaaah huuuuuuu!!!" thing, his crotch grabbing and shooting hand symbolism never changed. All these things he do is what the fans loved it, the old fans, the new fans, the "new born" fans, of all times, all love him

We never hear "Michael Jackson is not Michael jackson anymore", we never hear complaint about Michael Jackson changing genre, changing style, changing identity. The fans never hate his work. It is because he maintain his identity, even though he improvise his moves, way of singing, fashion and all but his identity remain and that make him unique. he have his identity and that identity makes his fans, old and new, love him

People who hate him not because of his work, but because of his crisis, his legal cases and so on, the media bashing on him, it is true in USA, but outside USA his fans don't care at all about it, outside USA Michael Jackson is No 1.

My point is, no one hate his work. That is the most excellent example on art and being an artist. No matter how people hate you, no matter how people despise you, but people don't hate your work, people love your work, people love your work because you being true to yourself.... that is most important

In front of us he being our "Michael Jackson", the identity he created, the identity that we accept it from the begining, and the identity that live with him from 70s to 80s, 90s, 2000, 2010...and forever....

R.I.P MJ...i love you so much.....

Lolwhut.


Anyway I think that connecting with a pre-cast protag would be much easier for some if there was MORE to connect to. Shepard had three games over which you could become attached to the character, yours or not. Hawke had one. I don't really care much either way since I always create a character to roleplay, in Origins I had a laregely blank slate, in DA2 you just have to work around what's already been established so I'm cool with whatever they come up with. I could form an emotional attachment to a brick given enough time.

[ArcaneJTM]

No, there was something other than time investment by the player.  Almost nobody plays a game to completion if they don't like it, and they are certainly less inclined to buy the sequals. 

If it takes three games for people to become attached to Shepard, there wouldn't be three games to allow them to become attached. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Give me five examples when DA:O does something that DA2 doesn't that somehow has an in-game reaction to a made up biography.

First, let's be clear that you're demanding a direct, in-game reaction.  An in-game reaction to something that was informed by that made up biography does not satisfy you.  You're insisting that the game clearly and explicitly react to content for that content to have any value to you.

That's an awfully steep filter.  And you've still never explained why the reaction matters.  You've also never justified your claim that nothing that isn't explicitly displayed ever happens in the game.

You're setting an impossible standard, and then complaining when no game meets that standard.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 mai 2013 - 07:16 .