122 réponses à ce sujet

[Schneidend]

riverbanks wrote...

Last I checked, Dragon Age is not Baldur's Gate.

That's kinda the point that proponents of the concept are missing too - GTA did it, Skyrim did it, this game and that game and that other game and that other other game did it... soooo? DA is none of those games. GTA also did cars and choppers. Skyrim also did vampires and romans. So what gives, should we have cars and choppers and vampires and romans in DA because other games did it too?

Last I checked, Dragon Age is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and BG is practically gospel on these forums.

Even just being able to target your own party members with damage spells in DA:O would have been a huge boon. Turning your tank into a spirit bomb with Force Field and Crushing Prison while leaving said Tank unharmed would have been an awesome trick, but because targeting was more restricted, it was impossible.

Modifié par Schneidend, 03 novembre 2013 - 05:59 .

[Il Divo]

Schneidend wrote...


Last I checked, Dragon Age is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and BG is practically gospel on these forums.

"Spiritual" successor, being the key phrase, and intended primarily for marketing more than anything else. It can mean whatever advertisers want it to and might have different connotations for players.

Aside from which, BG doing some things right is not the same as BG doing all things right. There very well might be a reason why Bioware hasn't let us attack random passersby since the Forgotten Realm days, simply from a practicality standpoint.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 novembre 2013 - 02:16 .

[bEVEsthda]

Il Divo wrote...

Schneidend wrote...


Last I checked, Dragon Age is a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and BG is practically gospel on these forums.

"Spiritual" successor, being the key phrase, and intended primarily for marketing more than anything else. It can mean whatever advertisers want it to and might have different connotations for players.

Aside from which, BG doing some things right is not the same as BG doing all things right. There very well might be a reason why Bioware hasn't let us attack random passersby since the Forgotten Realm days, simply from a practicality standpoint.

"Spiritual successor to BG" actually meant something, during the work on DA:O. It described the niche and art of game they aspired to create, but also modernise.

Then, all of that was thrown overboard for DA2 for unspoken reasons - which are easy to speculate around and about - and that led to a smaller market representing a different group who are now asking for GTA-type of gameplay in a forum-thread. Regardless, it now seems DA:I will have more BG features than DA:O -ones, so the 'spiritual successor'-idea seems to be back in.

And even if "Spiritual successor" is used for marketing, it cannot mean just anything. If it did, it would be useless for marketing. Even if it's not clearly and distinctly defined, it clearly aims to achieve a gaming experience that is, somehow, in the same flavor and art as BG.

[thebigbad1013]

I certainly hope not.

[In Exile]

bEVEsthda wrote...

"Spiritual successor to BG" actually meant something, during the work on DA:O. It described the niche and art of game they aspired to create, but also modernise.

Only in your head. ME1 was the "spiritual successor" to KoTOR. It had PC VO. It had action combat. It removed your ability to control your own party. It introduced driving. It introduced quasi-open world exploration using prefabricated maps.

It describes the fact similar people worked on that game vs. the last one, and that they'll create a "feel" that's somewhat similar. You can even spot the similarities - biotics = force, Spectre = quasi-Jedi, Normandy = Ebon Hawke, etc. 

Then, all of that was thrown overboard for DA2 for unspoken reasons - which are easy to speculate around and about - and that led to a smaller market representing a different group who are now asking for GTA-type of gameplay in a forum-thread. Regardless, it now seems DA:I will have more BG features than DA:O -ones, so the 'spiritual successor'-idea seems to be back in. 

And even if "Spiritual successor" is used for marketing, it cannot mean just anything. If it did, it would be useless for marketing. Even if it's not clearly and distinctly defined, it clearly aims to achieve a gaming experience that is, somehow, in the same flavor and art as BG. 

It means whatever it meant for ME1, and it certainly doesn't mean "same flavour" or "same art" since that wasn't really true in ME1 either. 

Modifié par In Exile, 03 novembre 2013 - 02:44 .

[Il Divo]

bEVEsthda wrote...

And even if "Spiritual successor" is used for marketing, it cannot mean just anything. If it did, it would be useless for marketing. Even if it's not clearly and distinctly defined, it clearly aims to achieve a gaming experience that is, somehow, in the same flavor and art as BG.

Sure it can. Using the phrase "spiritual successor" indicates that they are trying to draw some connection between DA:O and the original BG series. But what is the connection, from a practical standpoint? The developers obviously have certain ideas on that. And players might have different ideas on that as well. Because spiritual successor is a marketing term, it has no practical utility in determining what features you can expect from the experience. It's meant to make players think "Hey, I liked Baldur's Gate, so I must love this!" without actually making clear how it's similar to its predecessor.

This is evidenced by fans who like DA:O but still think it is nothing like Baldur's Gate, while others think it lines up very well. Your use of the term, "somehow", itself demonstrates that there is no clear set of features which this marketing hype implies.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 novembre 2013 - 03:11 .

[bEVEsthda]

It's the first time I hear ME being "The Spiritual Successor to KotOR". But it makes sorta sense, if I only consider the first game. After that, it makes somewhat less sense.

So I could consider it true for ME1, just as I consider it true for DA:O, despite things like the mana and autohealth, WoW-combat etc.

[bEVEsthda]

Il Divo wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

And even if "Spiritual successor" is used for marketing, it cannot mean just anything. If it did, it would be useless for marketing. Even if it's not clearly and distinctly defined, it clearly aims to achieve a gaming experience that is, somehow, in the same flavor and art as BG.

Sure it can. Using the phrase "spiritual successor" indicates that they are trying to draw some connection between DA:O and the original BG series. But what is the connection, from a practical standpoint? The developers obviously have certain ideas on that. And players might have different ideas on that as well. Because spiritual successor is a marketing term, it has no practical utility in determining what features you can expect from the experience. It's meant to make players think "Hey, I liked Baldur's Gate, so I must love this!" without actually making clear how it's similar to its predecessor.

This is evidenced by fans who like DA:O but still think it is nothing like Baldur's Gate, while others think it lines up very well. Your use of the term, "somehow", itself demonstrates that there is no clear set of features which this marketing hype implies.

I agree with, or find reasonable, everything except the crossed over statement.

[zMataxa]

Thanks to OP for this thread.
It helped me to finalize the words to describe why I am lukewarm about the Game of Throne series.
Like many others, I personally think this "randomly picking fights" is better suited to OTHER games, of which there are many already.

Modifié par zMataxa, 03 novembre 2013 - 07:18 .

[Zyree]

Exactly what tfcreative said. What you guys seem to want is Dragon Age: Grand Theft Auto. If you want a Grand Theft Auto game, go play a Grand Theft Auto game.

[Wulfram]

Soptraparu27 wrote...

Exactly what tfcreative said. What you guys seem to want is Dragon Age: Grand Theft Auto. If you want a Grand Theft Auto game, go play a Grand Theft Auto game.

Though Grand Theft Dragon seems like it could be a cool game.  Just not this one.

[Vilegrim]

Examurai1 wrote...

General Slotts wrote...

I am playing Dishonered. There they give you the option to kill anyone but if you kill a key character you get a mission failed screen, which made sense in context of the game. I thought it was neat.

... But pointless. Why give the option if the game is gonna fail you anyway.

Because then you learn to avoid doing it, avoid setting up situations that may hit the important character, for instance,

[Schneidend]

Soptraparu27 wrote...

Exactly what tfcreative said. What you guys seem to want is Dragon Age: Grand Theft Auto. If you want a Grand Theft Auto game, go play a Grand Theft Auto game.

I don't think the suggestion necessarily has anything to do with Grand Theft Auto beyond the thread title. GTAI, Fallout, and Baldur's Gate all came out around the same. Grand Theft Auto didn't invent killing NPCs.

[zMataxa]

Schneidend wrote...

I don't think the suggestion necessarily has anything to do with Grand Theft Auto beyond the thread title. GTAI, Fallout, and Baldur's Gate all came out around the same. Grand Theft Auto didn't invent killing NPCs.

_______________

True.
But GTA has really taken it to new heights in terms of level of detail in these "random scraps" for the sole purpose of scraps.  I watched a few in-depth reviews of GTA 5 (I heard lotsa feedback about the level of detail and wanted to get a sense of it) and one reviewer played a plethora of such random meaningless interactions.
It's like a Saturday night brawl -" Hey you wanna go, no ...well".
So I think the GTA 5 reference does break new ground.

Modifié par zMataxa, 03 novembre 2013 - 08:05 .

[Schneidend]

zMataxa wrote...

True.
But GTA has really taken it to new heights in terms of level of detail in these "random scraps" for the prupose of scraps.  I watched a few in-depth reviews of GTA 5 (I heard lotsa feedback about the level of detail and wanted to get a sense of it) and one reviewer played a plethora of such random meaningless interactions.
It's like a Saturday night brawl -" Hey you wanna go, no ...well".

Irrelevant to my desire to be able to target any character I want with my spells and abilities. In Baldur's Gate I like to make one character more or less immune to fire and then cast Aganazzar's Scorcher on them so they can run around clotheslining enemies with fire. You can't do anything like that in the Dragon Age games.

[Zyree]

Schneidend wrote...

Soptraparu27 wrote...

Exactly what tfcreative said. What you guys seem to want is Dragon Age: Grand Theft Auto. If you want a Grand Theft Auto game, go play a Grand Theft Auto game.

I don't think the suggestion necessarily has anything to do with Grand Theft Auto beyond the thread title. GTAI, Fallout, and Baldur's Gate all came out around the same. Grand Theft Auto didn't invent killing NPCs.

My point is, there are plently of games for you to play that have this little "extra-content" added in. If it was involved in Dragon Age then it would pretty much have to lead to a game over senario, not too many people would be willing to follow a leader who kills anyone they want just because they can. I also can't see too many of your companions lining up to follow your lead (plus, being able to control your companions and making them kill civilions brings in whole other problems that I can't imagine Bioware would want to address).

Dragon Age is its own game title and does not have to give into it's fans power-trip psycopath fantasies. Comparing it to other titles is like saying "Well Skyrim has has x so all games should have x!'

[zMataxa]

Schneidend wrote...

I don't think the suggestion necessarily has anything to do with Grand Theft Auto beyond the thread title.

____________

I was replying to this statement of yours.  So my point was very relevant to your opening thought.

In response to your underlying desire, yes, I could see how it would be a fascinating option to some to use NPCS as walking weapons.
Not my thing, unless the NPCS are interactive and really annoying, then maybe I could handle that level of NPC inclusion.

Modifié par zMataxa, 03 novembre 2013 - 08:19 .

[Schneidend]

Soptraparu27 wrote...
My point is, there are plently of games for you to play that have this little "extra-content" added in. If it was involved in Dragon Age then it would pretty much have to lead to a game over senario, not too many people would be willing to follow a leader who kills anyone they want just because they can. I also can't see too many of your companions lining up to follow your lead (plus, being able to control your companions and making them kill civilions brings in whole other problems that I can't imagine Bioware would want to address).

Dragon Age is its own game title and does not have to give into it's fans power-trip psycopath fantasies. Comparing it to other titles is like saying "Well Skyrim has has x so all games should have x!'

I'm not comparing Dragon Age to Skyrim. I'm comparing Dragon Age to Baldur's Gate, it's spiritual predecessor.


And, as for killing NPCs negatively influence, just have NPCs approve/disapprove or gain Friendship/Rivalry, whatever DAI happens to use. If they leave, they leave. It's not as if I intended to kill everybody, but I want the option to target my party members or NPCs so I can have a little more freedom to strategize, or be a bit of a ruthless jerk.

zMataxa wrote...

I was replying to this statement of yours.  So my point was very relevant to your opening thought.

In response to your underlying desire, yes, I could see how it would be a fascinating option to some to use NPCS as walking weapons.
Not my thing, unless the NPCS are interactive and really annoying, then maybe I could handle that level of NPC inclusion.

Part of the reason I want it is not to target just any NPC, but my party members, i.e. my Aganazzar's Scorcher or Force Field + Crushing Prison spell combo examples. 

[thats1evildude]

It's not a feature that interests me and I don't want resources spent on it. Pass.

[In Exile]

bEVEsthda wrote...

It's the first time I hear ME being "The Spiritual Successor to KotOR". But it makes sorta sense, if I only consider the first game. After that, it makes somewhat less sense.

So I could consider it true for ME1, just as I consider it true for DA:O, despite things like the mana and autohealth, WoW-combat etc. 

The marketing hype for ME1 as a spiritual successor was wild to start. That's what got me into ME1 and, eventually, into Bioware as a company (though I tracked their games, it was more likely how I tracked say AC IV now). 

To be clear (in hindsight my post wasn't clear on this), where I'm going with this is that if ME1 can count as a spiritual successor despite turning a turn-based aurora engine game with a silent PC with a D20 light ruleset into ME1's action-RPG combat with PC VO, then we can certainly say DA2 is in line with BG. 

I mean, all of Act I - getting the 50 gold - is just a nod to the BGII stronghold stuff anyway. That's certainly "spiritual" succession. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

We could attack almost anyone in BG - I liked that. And, when BG sent guards after you for being too much of a lunatic, those guards were a genuine threat (I don't think I ever defeated them).

So the Skyrim approach clearly isn't the only one available. And BG wasn't even a sandbox game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

To be clear (in hindsight my post wasn't clear on this), where I'm going with this is that if ME1 can count as a spiritual successor despite turning a turn-based aurora engine game with a silent PC with a D20 light ruleset into ME1's action-RPG combat with PC VO, then we can certainly say DA2 is in line with BG.

Outside of the VO, I'd say that ME and KotOR were very similar games.  Far more similar than BG and DA2 are.

[Neon Rising Winter]

There is also a certain sense to your character displaying random murderous tendencies in BG2 that doesn't apply in Dragon Age.