48 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

I will strongly disagree with this.  I know far more console RPG diehards than I do PC RPG diehards.  Most of them used to be PC gamers, who either got tired of pouring money into their rigs every six months to play the newest game or decided that a console had more overall functionality as a gaming and entertainment hub with their 60" TV - especially given that gaming experiences were largely similar or even easier to pick up on than PC.  I also know RPG diehards who've never played on anything BUT a console BECAUSE some companies started developing for console first instead of PC first.

 

Consider: Windows sales have been declining for YEARS, and this year is the largest drop in a long while.  Mac sales aren't growing.  OTOH, console sales ARE growing and game units moved on consoles far outstrips units moved on PC.

 

The shift to a console focus by game studios is nothing more than adaptation to market trends.  

 

If they're upgrading their PC every six months they don't know what the hell they're doing.  I haven't upgraded my PC in years, and I'm sure if I choose to get DA:I I can play on high settings.  I don't know where these myths about paying thousands of dollars or constantly upgrading PCs come from.

[Lee T]

The reason why it is this way is actually pretty obvious: it requires a LOT of additional programming to provide 6 choices instead of three.

They wont tell us but I'm willing to bet this is not about programming but about voice over budget.

[Spectre 117]

How many times have you looked at the available dialog choices and thought, "But I wouldn't want to say any of those things!  What I really want to say is "_________"?  Having your dialog forced upon you -- and most of those boiling down to Positive, Negative, or Neutral -- really isn't you roleplaying a character.  It's you cloning to the developers' limited imagination.  There is definitely no "outside of the box" thinking involved.  The reason why it is this way is actually pretty obvious: it requires a LOT of additional programming to provide 6 choices instead of three.  But the fact that the developers decided to use a wheel for dialog was itself a limiting factor: you can only fit so many choices in that limited space.  In contrast, an expandable list of dialog responses could literally provide an infinite number of possible responses.  But even if that list offered ten different responses, it would make it possible to make the character MUCH more "you" and less stock character A, B, or C.

 

Pretty much the issue of every modern rpg. Having voice acting as part of the formula has taken a serious toll in the quality of dialogues among all rpgs. Take a look at the dialogue options between Morrowind and Oblivion/Skyrim. Simply put, having voice limits the amount of dialogue options they can provide. In DA: I is bound to happen more since not only does your character also has a voice, but there are about 8 potential options with different implications and variables. They have to tailor the game in a way that the dialogue is fitting no matter if you are human male, female dwarf, male qunari, etc. 

[Xeper84]

If they're upgrading their PC every six months they don't know what the hell they're doing.  I haven't upgraded my PC in years, and I'm sure if I choose to get DA:I I can play on high settings.  I don't know where these myths about paying thousands of dollars or constantly upgrading PCs come from.

i know! People buy cheap complete office pcs at a discounter around the corner so they start with a bad pc and after 6 months they are not able to play many new games (more like a year)

[Spectre 117]

They wont tell us but I'm willing to bet this is not about programming but about voice over budget.

 

I would wager it's a combination of various factors. The first ones that come to mind are:

 

1)Budget as you mentioned.

 

2)Programming does also have an effect.

 

3)Time constraints.

 

4)File size.

[Epyon5757]

If they're upgrading their PC every six months they don't know what the hell they're doing.  I haven't upgraded my PC in years, and I'm sure if I choose to get DA:I I can play on high settings.  I don't know where these myths about paying thousands of dollars or constantly upgrading PCs come from.

 

I know that, and you know that.  You would not believe the amount of gaming PC's I have to fix at work because someone f***** up on installing...well, let's just say that I've reinstalled and/or repaired just about anything that can be put into a PC.

 

That doesn't change the fact that cost and time spent maintaining is the reason many people give for switching to a console over a PC.

[Spectre 117]

i know! People buy cheap complete office pcs at a discounter around the corner so they start with a bad pc and after 6 months they are not able to play many new games (more like a year)

 

I saw someone the other day complaining about how a next gen game was poorly optimized, because it didn't ran well on his Nvidia GT 600..........

[AlanC9]

In a word, yup.

I don't share your intuition there. (Then again, I'm not sharing a lot of your intuitions. )But I can't think of an objective way to examine the issue.

[Father_Jerusalem]

I'm playing a Dwarf Warrior who wants to try and mediate a peace between the mages and templars whilst reforming, or getting rid of, the chantry, and who absolutely refuses to acknowledge this "Herald of Andraste" nonsense.

 

My next playthrough will be a Qunari who completely embraces the Herald of Andraste as a tool to destroy the Templars once and for all, and bringing about a true era of Mage dominance.

 

So... yeah. I'm playing a role. Ergo, I am roleplaying. Ergo, this feels like roleplaying to me.

[Spectre 117]

I'm playing a Dwarf Warrior who wants to try and mediate a peace between the mages and templars whilst reforming, or getting rid of, the chantry, and who absolutely refuses to acknowledge this "Herald of Andraste" nonsense.

 

My next playthrough will be a Qunari who completely embraces the Herald of Andraste as a tool to destroy the Templars once and for all, and bringing about a true era of Mage dominance.

 

So... yeah. I'm playing a role. Ergo, I am roleplaying. Ergo, this feels like roleplaying to me.

 

A lot of people have forgotten that part of the roleplay elements comes from the story you want to build for your character. I done this in Skyrim and god knows that game barely feels like an rpg without mods. 

[AlanC9]

A lot of people have forgotten that part of the roleplay elements comes from the story you want to build for your character. I done this in Skyrim and god knows that game barely feels like an rpg without mods.

What mods actually help with the RPG-ness?

[KaiserShep]

In a word, yup.

 

I can't help but feel inclined to call shenanigans on the claim that DA2 had more combat. As I'm feeling lazy, I don't feel like running through the entire gamut of quest lines for each game. DA:O certainly has a lot more optional combat, but that's not really the same thing.

[Spectre 117]

What mods actually help with the RPG-ness?

 

There are actually quite a few that add some roleplay elements. I can't remember the names, but there is one that makes the game like oblivion, with you having to choose a class, birthsing ande everything. Other modified the combat and difficulty. Some add more immersion things like being able to take on normal jobs and stuff like that. 

 

Honestly, the thing that I hate the most in Skyrim, is how they got rid of classes. I used to love making multiple characters with different classes. In skyrim by the end, you guy is practically OP in everything./

[AlanC9]

Steam and Origin are great services, but the problem still remains that to play the newest games on the highest settings, you're dumping 300+ every year into a new graphics card or better memory. There's a reason that the only people I know who still game on PC are single, and the ones who aren't single but still game PC's only exist in MMO land now.
.

Hmm... the implication here is that we're better off without choices. A PC gamer could just choose to let himself fall further behind the state of the art the same way the console guys have to. But that doesn't work, eh?

Come to think of it, several of the things in the post above are basically ways to restrict the character.

[Qunari Ardat-Yakshi]

Um.... This game rocks.... That is all.

[Al Foley]

Dragon Age Origins was, imho, a pretty good RPG.  Quite a bit of hack-and-slash, but a LOT of character interaction with a LOT of decision points where one style would win friends but also alienate others.  Then along came DA2 and it seemed like roleplaying was an afterthought behind a HUGE amount of Action hacking-and-slashing.  Really annoyed a lot of gamers that had been hoping for more DAO gaming goodness.  Console gamers loved it, but then it was pretty obvious the focus of the design was to utilize console controls.  Since it seems most diehard RPGers are also PC-users, that might have accounted for much of the RPGer disillusionment.  Then EA/BioWare announced DA3 was in the works:  “Our goal with Dragon Age: Inquisition is to usher in the next generation of role playing games,”  If this is the "next generation of role playing games", I think the genre is about as good as dead.  Just where is the roleplaying?  Making menu selections on a dialog wheel?  Deciding where to put upgrade points?  Choosing "either" or "or"?  How much character are you infusing into your character?

 

It wouldn't be so bad as "just a game" if only the interface controls were reasonable.  But it seems I'm spending more time wrestling with my keyboard and mouse, trying to just get my character to move how I want to move and to where I want to go than to actually navigate combat situations smoothly.  "User-friendly" and "intuitive" this interface is not.  Just trying to get through the first Boss fight has killed my interest in this game.  I want to play the game, not be stymied by its functionality.

 

I thought DA2 was bad enough in regards to the diminishing roleplaying attribute of the series.  This, DA3, is worse.

 

The only thing I really feel qualified to mention and discuss is the attribute points.  Does that, by itself, make a break an RPG?  I was pretty annoyed myself until I realized that Mass Effect had no such attribute system and, in general, I enjoy those games more then the DA games.  So far at least.  So while I am sure that I will miss it, to me, this does not break the RPG bank there and by itself, and was not that much of a role playing aspect for me.  Roleplaying is in the dialog wheel and the voice acting, etc, etc.  

I'll agree to the sentiment. It does feel a lot more like another Hawke - it's a bit more malleble, especially due to the origins, but it does feel like you're playing a character who IS a character their own right as opposed to you taking on the role and fully being that person. That's for two reasons I think. The first is the random banter you interact in, without any input on your behalf - maybe your character wouldn't make a snappy quip, but is a more stoic or serious character, but if so, too bad, headcannon what just happened out. The second thing is the voice acting; you can't do a proper role playing game with a customisable character when you give that character a voice, because the actor always gives things a certain tone, a weight that you may or may not intend yourself. This is why DA:O felt like a better RPG, because you felt ownership of that custom character as opposed to just thinking you had input.

I kind of prefer it this way really, I think I would make a terrible savior of the universe.

[CaptainPatch]

PC gamers are largely older people with the means to maintain expensive and high performance rigs, and there's nothing wrong with that - but the next generation of gamers was raised on consoles.  They are far more accessible and require far less money to keep running.  Steam and Origin are great services, but the problem still remains that to play the newest games on the highest settings, you're dumping 300+ every year into a new graphics card or better memory.  

This is pretty much the core of the whole situation.  PCs cost more and require a steady influx of cash to keep the hardware up-to-date.  Consoles are cheaper, with upgrades occurring at wider intervals.  Consoles are really good for Action stuff, but for pretty much everything else, PCs do it better.  Buuuuttttt, today's teenagers WILL eventually become adults -- with more disposable income because they have higher-paying jobs than teenagers working part-time often minimum wage jobs.  Market studies have shone that most diehard PC gamers _are_ older, and reluctant to switch focus to consoles because they have become accustomed to just how "richer" a game can be running on PC hardware.  Sure, many predominantly Pc gamers also have consoles -- but that's because they can afford to have both.  And, yes, some console gamers will _always_ prefer consoles.  But that's mostly because they are also Action-oriented and console titles are all they will ever need to feed their addiction.  But overall, the trend is that older gamers migrate to PC (if they're not already there), and as such will be looking for more in a game than just hack, hack, hack, slash, slash, slash.  (Or for other genres: bang, bang, bang, boom, boom, boom, zap, zap, zap, etc.)

[CaptainPatch]

If they're upgrading their PC every six months they don't know what the hell they're doing.  I haven't upgraded my PC in years, and I'm sure if I choose to get DA:I I can play on high settings.  I don't know where these myths about paying thousands of dollars or constantly upgrading PCs come from.

I quite agree with this.  The last time I upgraded my PC hardware was about two years ago.  I spent about $500 to create a 2nd-best rig.  Today, I can still play latest-and-greatest games like DAI on High settings across the board and experience few or no problems.

 

As a footnote, I find that the biggest problem about PCs is their susceptibility to viruses and malware.  Spend time on the Internet and you WILL acquire some of that trash eventually.  AFAIK, that isn't a concern with consoles.

 

_________________

Oops!  Sorry.  Didn't mean to double-post.  I had been planning to Edit this one onto the previous post; just hit Submit too soon out of reflex.

 

They wont tell us but I'm willing to bet this is not about programming but about voice over budget.

 

Part of the cost of creating more dialog options.  I was sort of factoring that in.

 

4)File size.

I doubt this is a concern.  The more games a PC gamer gets, the more hard drive they get as part of a system upgrade keeps getting bigger.  Less than 5 years ago, 500 Gb was considered awesome!  Now having as much as 1 Tb (which is what I got two years ago) is fairly commonplace.  If a decent game requires a LOT of disk space -- say, @100 Gb -- gamers WILL make room for it, either by freeing up space by dumping older files or getting a larger hard drive.

[rubynorman]

I have a bunch of dialog choices, even remain silent is a choice ( that's a nice touch), deciding the Inquisition's daily matters and talking with major characters with just 4 hours playing the game, it feels like roleplaying to me so far. Don't skip content and say there isn't enough content (a.k.a by going to Hinderland immediately and not discovering Haven more) . Also the crafting system is crazyy (in a good way)

 

I'm not sure how PC talks is related to the topic's tittle.

[Blue Item]

I think it's really a matter of perspective on how you expect roleplaying in this game (or really, almost any newer rpg) to work.

 

In the older games (BG2, Planescape, DA:O to an extent), your character was nothing but an avatar of you in the game world -- they didn't really have any character of their own, but the lack of voicework meant that they could have a ton of options for conversations. I'd argue BG2 and P:T had it easier in this regard, since most responses weren't voiced either, so it was much more convenient to have conversations go anyway you'd like. You also had little to no animation for conversations, so there was no need to script them to get to a certain point or place in the world. These, along with a few other factors, expanded your options considerably, but also made it so the developers really couldn't assume anything about your character, so all responses had to be reasonably open-ended enough that any character could have made them (seriously, go back and look at some of BG2's conversations, they're occasionally unitentionally hilarious in just how bland your character is). The only one to really break this was Planescape, but Planescape is really the abberation here, in that it really focused on storytelling when most of the other games went with a more combat/grand adventure focus.

 

In newer rpgs, the approach has shifted from you determining fully your character to you having a series of preset features and roleplaying within those bounds. I still feel that DA:I is a significant step forward in this regard, in that it broke the 3 choices + special system of ME3 and DA:2 and gave you quite a few more options at times, especially when you're responding to questions about yourself and your beliefs, or how you feel about a certain situation. Still, I can understand the discontent, as for example my elf can't be violently anti-human, and you're still forced to take certain actions in situations even if it doesn't fit the character you envisioned. The tradeoff for this is that your character feels more like an actual character in the world and not just an avatar for the player -- I actually quite like snarky Hawke as a character, yet I could care less for the Hero of Ferelden because they really have no personality to speak of. There's more potential for wildly different characters there, but in returns they really give up any defining character traits or likeable quirks.

 

I personally don't think either of them is definitively better, although I must admit a slight preference towards the old way (if only because I adore Planescape). However, I do think that part of the backlash towards the new way is that we haven't really had an older style rpg with a good focus on conversation and characters -- Wasteland 2, while a decent game, is much more combat focused, with most of it's personality coming from its setting rather than the characters or dialogue, and the other two big revivals of Pillars of Eternity and Torment Numenera aren't out yet. It'll actually be interesting to see if those recieve a backlash due to the protagonist being less of an entity, although I'd imagine the target audience for those games much prefers the older style and won't complain. Or Numenera's tides system could actually work and give the best of both worlds (minus those who actually like voice acting, I suppose).

[RedStar Kachina]

Dragon Age Origins was, imho, a pretty good RPG.  Quite a bit of hack-and-slash, but a LOT of character interaction with a LOT of decision points where one style would win friends but also alienate others.  Then along came DA2 and it seemed like roleplaying was an afterthought behind a HUGE amount of Action hacking-and-slashing.  Really annoyed a lot of gamers that had been hoping for more DAO gaming goodness.  Console gamers loved it, but then it was pretty obvious the focus of the design was to utilize console controls.  Since it seems most diehard RPGers are also PC-users, that might have accounted for much of the RPGer disillusionment.  Then EA/BioWare announced DA3 was in the works:  “Our goal with Dragon Age: Inquisition is to usher in the next generation of role playing games,”  If this is the "next generation of role playing games", I think the genre is about as good as dead.  Just where is the roleplaying?  Making menu selections on a dialog wheel?  Deciding where to put upgrade points?  Choosing "either" or "or"?  How much character are you infusing into your character?

 

It wouldn't be so bad as "just a game" if only the interface controls were reasonable.  But it seems I'm spending more time wrestling with my keyboard and mouse, trying to just get my character to move how I want to move and to where I want to go than to actually navigate combat situations smoothly.  "User-friendly" and "intuitive" this interface is not.  Just trying to get through the first Boss fight has killed my interest in this game.  I want to play the game, not be stymied by its functionality.

 

I thought DA2 was bad enough in regards to the diminishing roleplaying attribute of the series.  This, DA3, is worse.

They also said this game was supposed to be like Origins, but I don't see it. I see this game more like DA2 game style.

[Bethgael]

I can't help but feel inclined to call shenanigans on the claim that DA2 had more combat. As I'm feeling lazy, I don't feel like running through the entire gamut of quest lines for each game. DA:O certainly has a lot more optional combat, but that's not really the same thing.

 

I think it's not so much that DA2 has more combat than DA:O as it is that it has less of the other stuff than Origins did. They are both combat-high games, but DA2 didn't have as much camp banter, conversations and other RPG elements that enriched DA:O, and what it did have was constrained (in a very Awakening-like fashion).

In regards to the OP, I see the current RPG style less as an "insert yourself intothe avatar" type game that pen-and-paper might have had, and more as a "watch certain decisions and see a certain story" type role. I am not necessarily happy with that development, but that's my take on it.

[Rawgrim]

I think it's not so much that DA2 has more combat than DA:O as it is that it has less of the other stuff than Origins did. They are both combat-high games, but DA2 didn't have as much camp banter, conversations and other RPG elements that enriched DA:O, and what it did have was constrained (in a very Awakening-like fashion).

In regards to the OP, I see the current RPG style less as an "insert yourself intothe avatar" type game that pen-and-paper might have had, and more as a "watch certain decisions and see a certain story" type role. I am not necessarily happy with that development, but that's my take on it.

 

Does DA:I have the same constrained conversations as Awakening and DA2 did?

[Farangbaa]

If they're upgrading their PC every six months they don't know what the hell they're doing.  I haven't upgraded my PC in years, and I'm sure if I choose to get DA:I I can play on high settings.  I don't know where these myths about paying thousands of dollars or constantly upgrading PCs come from.

 

This.

 

I buy a beast of a PC like every 5 or 6 years. No need to upgrade constantly.

 

I roughly buy a new PC everytime the consoles go next gen... I just realized, heh.