272 réponses à ce sujet

[Abaddon_86]

No, it isn't opinion. You're just wrong. (See, we can all play that game.)

 

You may believe that, but that doesn't make it right as logic still applies. And obviously few to no options is less than at least two major options.

 

Example: BG2 let me become a ****ing god of murder and live up to that, while I could also simply toss the legacy aside and remain a human (with demi-god-like powers though). Two completely different outcomes (in fact there were even more outcomes although not as radically opposite to each other as these). What can I do in DA:I? Save the world, build the Inquisition. They don't even tell me that I made it a super power in that its army's march shook the earth, its daggers in the dark were feared in all of Thedas and every ruler stood in awe of my magnificence as divine Inquisitor, heeding my every word or face obliteration (that would have been an acceptable outcome for those going for power-mongering for instance). Instead, always the same outcome with minor variations (whether Hawke, Loghain or Stout went to Weisshaupt and mysteriously dissappeared etc. wow.)

[Realmzmaster]

What being stated here is simply opinion and not fact. Everyone has an opinion of what game is better. I personally think that the Bard's Tale series, Wizardry series and Might and Magic series are superior to many of the games like BG2 etc. But that is my opinion. No fact involved no matter how many times you say it. 

 

BG2 is a good game, but I may think that Planescape Torment or Temple of Elemental Evil are better games.

 

Opinion is not fact.

[AshesEleven]

What being stated here is simply opinion and not fact. Everyone has an opinion of what game is better. I personally think that the Bard's Tale series, Wizardry series and Might and Magic series are superior to many of the games like BG2 etc. But that is my opinion. No fact involved no matter how many times you say it.

BG2 is a good game, but I may think that Planescape Torment or Temple of Elemental Evil are better games.

Opinion is not fact.

Hard to convince a person who believes that they speak objective truths that they're spouting opinions, not facts, you're kinda wasting your breath...or finger endurance, whatever.

Personally I find Inquisition allows for more varied, nuanced decisions than other games, which are way more interesting than "let's kill the puppy mwahaha". I can express a variety of opinions on the mages, for instance. I like that there are no evil choices, feels more realistic that my hero is not suddenly burning children to sacrifice to the dark gods, instead I can create more complex characters.

[Al Foley]

Hard to convince a person who believes that they speak objective truths that they're spouting opinions, not facts, you're kinda wasting your breath...or finger endurance, whatever.

Personally I find Inquisition allows for more varied, nuanced decisions than other games, which are way more interesting than "let's kill the puppy mwahaha". I can express a variety of opinions on the mages, for instance. I like that there are no evil choices, feels more realistic that my hero is not suddenly burning children to sacrifice to the dark gods, instead I can create more complex characters.

Defining a character by paragon renegade or good and evil is pretty boring anyways.  One of the ways I do prefer DA games.  

[Deepsetsoul]

The issue is Bioware Fans dont want to make decisions.

 

They want loud, awesome inspiring music to play while their self insert super hero main character goes from place to place single handedly saving the day.

The only choice is how he saves the day, and even then, the day is saved.

You dont create a character, they give you a character and you design his face. Then they tell you a premade story and you choose whether your character is a nice guy, a dick, or a violent sword wielding version of Ray Lewis.

No matter what, your self insert swordsman will save the day, while trumpets blaze and guitar riffs abound, and you could feel like the super bad ass youve always wanted to be.

[AshesEleven]

Defining a character by paragon renegade or good and evil is pretty boring anyways. One of the ways I do prefer DA games.

Yup, I want a complex personality and I don't want the game to punish me for not exclusively choosing one morality. It's almost like you're being punished for role playing more than a one dimensional character in mass effect.

[Al Foley]

Yup, I want a complex personality and I don't want the game to punish me for not exclusively choosing one morality. It's almost like you're being punished for role playing more than a one dimensional character in mass effect.

Actually though I did manage to create (througha  liberal helping of headcanon) a pretty complicated Fem Shep.  Maxed out both her Paragon and Renegade bars in ME 2.  But, I do prefer the DA way of doing it still.  Its most about personality and color then action neccessarily.  

[AshesEleven]

Actually though I did manage to create (througha liberal helping of headcanon) a pretty complicated Fem Shep. Maxed out both her Paragon and Renegade bars in ME 2. But, I do prefer the DA way of doing it still. Its most about personality and color then action neccessarily.

In ME3 I felt like it was better. I was generally paragon but made the renegade choice with genophage cure. It was nice to be able to back away from being the typical Boy Scout and actually make some hard choices.

[Deepsetsoul]

Thats because Mass Effect was 100 percent "Role Play as Shepard" which made it fine.

This game tries to give you a voiced, pre designed character AND give you the illusion of designing your own character.

Which ends with you having a poorly defined shallow character who just punches bad guys and reacts to what happens around him.

[AshesEleven]

Thats because Mass Effect was 100 percent "Role Play as Shepard" which made it fine.

This game tries to give you a voiced, pre designed character AND give you the illusion of designing your own character.

Which ends with you having a poorly defined shallow character who just punches bad guys and reacts to what happens around him.

Eh, he's not more predefined than others. You can basically choose your past in dialogue options, you have more chances to express how you feel, and people react to your choices (though I'm still mid game so maybe that changes, I'll have to see)

I definitely feel like he's at least as predetermined as Origins hero, maybe more so.

[Deepsetsoul]

Eh, he's not more predefined than others. You can basically choose your past in dialogue options, you have more chances to express how you feel, and people react to your choices (though I'm still mid game so maybe that changes, I'll have to see)

I definitely feel like he's at least as predetermined as Origins hero, maybe more so.

1. DA:O being worse doesnt make this better.

2. Choosing your past from pre defined options is not role playing. Its multiple choice.

Regardless of who you make "the inquisitor", he still cant do anything unless his advisors and companions tell him to do it, he cant actively progress the story himself, and his only true purpose in the inquisition is to fight monsters.

 

Thats why people are upset.

 

You cant influence the world in any way other than completing pre designed missions.

[AshesEleven]

1. DA:O being worse doesnt make this better.
2. Choosing your past from pre defined options is not role playing. Its multiple choice.

Regardless of who you make "the inquisitor", he still cant do anything unless his advisors and companions tell him to do it, he cant actively progress the story himself, and his only true purpose in the inquisition is to fight monsters.

Thats why people are upset.

You cant influence the world in any way other than completing pre designed missions.

This is no different from any RPG. If you have an RPG that doesn't have "multiple choice" I'd love to see it.

[Deepsetsoul]

This is no different from any RPG. If you have an RPG that doesn't have "multiple choice" I'd love to see it.

Well, the Elder Scrolls games tend to have gameplay systems and entire questlines that dont tie into the world "conflict".

There is also the Dynamic content you can make by Stealing, or confusing enemy AI.

In Bioware Games, your only option is to murder the bad guys the game tells you are bad guys, or reason with the bad guy when given the choice.

I guess the real issue is that Bioware games are on rails. Adding meaningless open world zones doesnt suddenly mean the narrative isnt linear.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

The game is a nice mix of open world sand box elements and staple RPG story telling. And what it does want to do it does well. I would prefer more sandbox element in any RPG because that's just what I like. But anyone who bought DA:I and expected all these hundreds of choices for any single option to be facilitated through gameplay and story telling either has never played a Bioware game or suffers from considerable memory loss. It is on par with the way Bioware games have handled every aspect of the aforementioned, and does seek to make improvements to various elements.

 

This is why anyone who claims that it's lacking in RPG aspects for any number of reasons show they have failed to do their homework or temper their expectations to a reasonable degree. These are personal failings, and not really a reflection of the product.

[Deepsetsoul]

The game is a nice mix of open world sand box elements and staple RPG story telling. And what it does want to do it does well. I would prefer more sandbox element in any RPG because that's just what I like. But anyone who bought DA:I and expected all these hundreds of choices for any single option to be facilitated through gameplay and story telling either has never played a Bioware game or suffers from considerable memory loss. It is on par with the way Bioware games have handled every aspect of the aforementioned, and does seek to make improvements to various elements.

 

This is why anyone who claims that it's lacking in RPG aspects for any number of reasons show they have failed to do their homework or temper their expectations to a reasonable degree. These are personal failings, and not really a reflection of the product.

Please name one instance outside of DA:I (which is noticably better, which ill credit bioware for) where your decisions in a bioware game made a difference outside of the cutscene that plays at the end of the game.

[AshesEleven]

Well, the Elder Scrolls games tend to have gameplay systems and entire questlines that dont tie into the world "conflict".

There is also the Dynamic content you can make by Stealing, or confusing enemy AI.

In Bioware Games, your only option is to murder the bad guys the game tells you are bad guys, or reason with the bad guy when given the choice.

I guess the real issue is that Bioware games are on rails. Adding meaningless open world zones doesnt suddenly mean the narrative isnt linear.

Fair point, but I prefer the system in bioware games to the ones in Bethesda games. I feel like the experience is more memorable when there's a linear story but I get to make choices along the way. I don't enjoy just wandering around a world and picking up random quests without feeling like there's a purpose I'm working towards.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

Please name one instance outside of DA:I (which is noticably better, which ill credit bioware for) where your decisions in a bioware game made a difference outside of the cutscene that plays at the end of the game.

 

I won't, because I don't remember any. Which was at least half of the point of the post of mine which you quoted.

 

The impact of your choices in DA:I are comparable to your choices in KOTOR, ME, and the other contemporary titles. I can't speak on BG and I wouldn't because I haven't played the series and it's ancient enough that anyone expecting to buy DA:I and see many similarities between it and the latest game is just being obnoxious for the sake of it.

[Deepsetsoul]

I'd like to point out that this game is not terrible at its RPG presentation. I just personally think ME did it better.

Both ME and DA are lightyears ahead of other "RPGs" on PC these days.

[Jouni S]

It's hard to define what role-playing games are, because different RPGs have very little in common. At one extreme, you have the classic dungeon crawls, where the characters are nothing but their stats. At another extreme, RPGs can be essentially cooperative storytelling games with minimal game mechanics and no character stats.

I like to think that there are four main approaches to making a role-playing game:

• We can concentrate on game mechanics and make a game about exploration and overcoming challenges. This is what most computer RPGs were in the 80s and the 90s.
• The game can tell a story. The player may have some freedon in choosing what to do next, and there can be choices that affect the outcome of the story, but ultimately the game is about completing story. This is your generic Bioware RPG.
• We can make the setting the main character. The player creates one or more characters and starts exploring a world that lives on independently of the characters. There can be challenges to overcome and predetermined plots, but ultimately the game is about the setting. Skyrim is probably the most successful example of an RPG like this.
• The game can also be primarily about characters and character interactions. You don't as much play the character as become it. The character may be completely predetermined, and even the personality and the goals may have been determined in advance. This kind of role-playing is very hard to get right in a computer game, but Planescape: Torment, DA2, and the Witcher series had some elements of it.

[Deepsetsoul]

Voice acting really hurt RPGs.

 

Instead of writing books, now they try to do as little dialogue as possible, because they pay for every line.

[Al Foley]

It's hard to define what role-playing games are, because different RPGs have very little in common. At one extreme, you have the classic dungeon crawls, where the characters are nothing but their stats. At another extreme, RPGs can be essentially cooperative storytelling games with minimal game mechanics and no character stats.

I like to think that there are four main approaches to making a role-playing game:

• We can concentrate on game mechanics and make a game about exploration and overcoming challenges. This is what most computer RPGs were in the 80s and the 90s.
• The game can tell a story. The player may have some freedon in choosing what to do next, and there can be choices that affect the outcome of the story, but ultimately the game is about completing story. This is your generic Bioware RPG.
• We can make the setting the main character. The player creates one or more characters and starts exploring a world that lives on independently of the characters. There can be challenges to overcome and predetermined plots, but ultimately the game is about the setting. Skyrim is probably the most successful example of an RPG like this.
• The game can also be primarily about characters and character interactions. You don't as much play the character as become it. The character may be completely predetermined, and even the personality and the goals may have been determined in advance. This kind of role-playing is very hard to get right in a computer game, but Planescape: Torment, DA2, and the Witcher series had some elements of it.

 

I knew there was a reason I liked DA 2 so much, and I think you put it quite...well. 

 

Edit: I am not sure if I would consider DA 2 and the Witcher to be the same in that regard.  Maybe they are but I felt pretty free to create a character with my Hawke just with a lot of the information filled in.  

[CronoDragoon]

You may believe that, but that doesn't make it right as logic still applies. And obviously few to no options is less than at least two major options.

 

Example: BG2 let me become a ****ing god of murder and live up to that, while I could also simply toss the legacy aside and remain a human (with demi-god-like powers though). Two completely different outcomes (in fact there were even more outcomes although not as radically opposite to each other as these). What can I do in DA:I? Save the world, build the Inquisition. They don't even tell me that I made it a super power in that its army's march shook the earth, its daggers in the dark were feared in all of Thedas and every ruler stood in awe of my magnificence as divine Inquisitor, heeding my every word or face obliteration (that would have been an acceptable outcome for those going for power-mongering for instance). Instead, always the same outcome with minor variations (whether Hawke, Loghain or Stout went to Weisshaupt and mysteriously dissappeared etc. wow.)

 

Having the PC turn into a powerful evil dude is probably a decision best saved for the last story in a series. Otherwise it gets retconned in the next game. (cue the sound of a million KOTOR 1 fans weeping into their palms)

[AlanC9]

You may believe that, but that doesn't make it right as logic still applies. And obviously few to no options is less than at least two major options.
 
Example: BG2 let me become a ****ing god of murder and live up to that, while I could also simply toss the legacy aside and remain a human (with demi-god-like powers though). Two completely different outcomes (in fact there were even more outcomes although not as radically opposite to each other as these). What can I do in DA:I? Save the world, build the Inquisition. They don't even tell me that I made it a super power in that its army's march shook the earth, its daggers in the dark were feared in all of Thedas and every ruler stood in awe of my magnificence as divine Inquisitor, heeding my every word or face obliteration (that would have been an acceptable outcome for those going for power-mongering for instance). Instead, always the same outcome with minor variations (whether Hawke, Loghain or Stout went to Weisshaupt and mysteriously dissappeared etc. wow.)

So the standard is how radically different the endings are? OK. ME3 is the all-time best at this, isn't it? Four different endings that are as radically different as any that have ever been, or five if Shepard's survival counts as different enough from regular Destroy, on top of huge consequences before the endings. Also note that many supposedly classic RPGs fail this standard, including both BG1 and BG2 (the ending you mention is only present in the TOB expansion). Fallout fails too. TW1's endings are all pretty similar. Not sure about the TES games, since it depends on the scoring methodology. The Ultimas all fail, if we want to go back that far.

It's not an unreasonable standard, mind. But I'm pretty sure Ieldra wouldn't sign on for it, and I'm not at all sure why it's a good one.

[AlanC9]

Having the PC turn into a powerful evil dude is probably a decision best saved for the last story in a series. Otherwise it gets retconned in the next game. (cue the sound of a million KOTOR 1 fans weeping into their palms)

You just had to remind me, didn't you? As much as I like KotOR 2, I'd almost be willing to erase it from my memory if that meant being able to forget the horrible way they handled the KotOR ending.

[Ieldra]

It's not an unreasonable standard, mind. But I'm pretty sure Ieldra wouldn't sign on for it, and I'm not at all sure why it's a good one.

I really liked the ending of Throne of Bhaal, it's one of my favorite game endings. However, for me the meaningful element there was the decision between godhood and remaining human. That I could be an evil god as well as a good one played no part in my appreciation.

 

Also, the diversity of the outcomes has nothing to do with the roleplaying dimension. A game can give you hundreds of different ways to play your character, even make them drastically different, and still end the same, without losing any of its roleplaying merits. Who your character is can be largely independent from the impact they have on the story. Acknowledgement by the story is important not for your roleplaying as such, but to give you the impression that you're an actor in the story rather than someone who bangs their heads against fate in a futile attempt to feel significant. Both premises can be a valid setup for roleplaying, but of course the latter is thoroughly unsatisfying for most players. Personally, there is little I hate more than stories where the protagonist remains powerless until the end. I've read a few books like that and they all make me depressive rather than appreciative of the message that there is merit in the struggle, even if it's futile. I do feel like an actor in DAI, however, and find my decisions acknowledged rather well.

 

I should add that I also don't feel powerless as Hawke in DA2. That some of Hawke's impact is predetermined doesn't take away from it. Hawke's just jinxed by fate, a walking disaster catalyst, but she holds up quite well under that pressure,