848 réponses à ce sujet

[Fantazm1978]

I don't think so.  Bioware just doesn't give a ****.

 

nobody knows dude. Nobody will ever know unless they take a compulsory poll of every person who ever bought or played Origins.

[Remmirath]

At this point, a direct sequel to Origins would make relatively little sense, and I certainly wouldn't want a remake (it's nowhere near an old enough game for that). However, I'm reasonably sure that what was meant was "another Dragon Age game with the same gameplay and mechanics as Origins" rather than either of those things, and that I would be very happy with if it should happen.

I feel that Inquisition is a great deal better than Dragon Age II, or at the very least, more to my taste. The combat remains something of an annoyance, albeit in different ways than it was in DA II, and I miss a lot of things from both games, but overall it's a fun game. Having two voice options per gender was much better than having no options, but the paraphrasing system is still a horrible impediment to roleplaying. In fact, mechanically speaking, I can't think of anything that I feel was definitely improved from Origins, although there are several things that I think are interesting. Honestly, the combat feels to me like nothing so much as playing Guild Wars 2, to the point that I kept trying to dodge in the same way for the first few hours I played the game. I'm not particularly fond of that style of combat in general, and it's very much not what I like in a single-player RPG.

When people prefer something that happens to have been older, that is not nostalgia. Newer things are not always better, and certainly not always objectively better. In games, yes, the graphics are almost always better as time goes on (although this is not always the case, as sometimes there's a large enough style shift that it becomes a matter of preference instead) -- but really, while graphics are nice and all, what I care about the most is gameplay. That does not always improve with newer games. In roleplaying games specifically, I value the ability to create and control a variety of very different characters just as highly as I do the gameplay, and if anything it's been my experience that that is usually easier to do in older games (although Inquisition does actually do quite well with that, paraphrasing system aside -- a pleasant surprise).

Origins is, so far, the only cRPG with activated abilities that I have really enjoyed the combat of. It's definitely a relief in Inquisition that said abilities aren't so constantly necessary as they were in DA II, but in exchange, they got even cheesier. I don't have anything against cheesiness in an ultimate sense, I suppose, but it very much clashes with the setting and the kind of stories they've been telling. Not only do I enjoy more realistic combat more, it would certainly fit in better with the world and all.

Anyway, yeah. A return to that style of combat, and those mechanics in general, would be great. There were a few issues here and there, of course, but so far neither DA II or Inquisition has actualy fixed them. For instance: combat, especially with two-handed weapons, was too slow in Origins; in DA II, it became too fast, and then slow again with Inquisition.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

The thing is that once DA2 hit you had fans of both core mechanics. Inquisition tried to split it and have some of both, but there are people who will never be happy unless it is Origins 2.0

 

If they did make Origins 2.0 then there would be complaints that they threw all the other stuff away they've done since then and went back to the slow paced combat.

This is Biowares biggest problem they have sacrificed their dream game idea to a bunch of whiney ADHD ridden teenagers. If something takes 5 seconds or more to read they throw a tantrum. if it takes 3 seconds or more to kill something they throw a tantrum. If there isn't a big ****** arrow telling them where to go and nice flashy lights when they hit something..... well you can work out what happens next.

 

We live in a fast paced world people have become so much more impatient (I am guilty of this too) but in video games it gives us a chance to step out of the real world and spend a few hours enjoying something else. Why would people want to rush through that?

[Vox Draco]

 If Divinity: Original Sin can sell as well as it has in 2014, there's a definite place in this industry for CRPGs.

 

Problem for me is: Divinity is a rather good turn-based combat simulator, but not a very intriguing RPG ... probably my big disapointment this year, still stuck in chap 2 because so boring...*sigh*

[Shreav]

This is Biowares biggest problem they have sacrificed their dream game idea to a bunch of whiney ADHD ridden teenagers. If something takes 5 seconds or more to read they throw a tantrum. if it takes 3 seconds or more to kill something they throw a tantrum. If there isn't a big ****** arrow telling them where to go and nice flashy lights when they hit something..... well you can work out what happens next.

 

We live in a fast paced world people have become so much more impatient (I am guilty of this too) but in video games it gives us a chance to step out of the real world and spend a few hours enjoying something else. Why would people want to rush through that?

I loved Origin and I love Inquisition.  They're not the same game mechanically but the Inquisition story is just as monolithic and important as the events from Origin.  Depending on what difficulty you're playing, you'll get what you're craving in Inquisition.  And if you have a keen eye, you'll be able to explore the rich story in this game.  There is plenty of reading available, it's just not shoved in your face consistently.

[archav3n]

Bioware is no longer the old Bioware. This new generation of Bioware loves nothing but console action games.

[WillieStyle]

This is Biowares biggest problem they have sacrificed their dream game idea to a bunch of whiney ADHD ridden teenagers. If something takes 5 seconds or more to read they throw a tantrum. if it takes 3 seconds or more to kill something they throw a tantrum. If there isn't a big ****** arrow telling them where to go and nice flashy lights when they hit something..... well you can work out what happens next.

 

We live in a fast paced world people have become so much more impatient (I am guilty of this too) but in video games it gives us a chance to step out of the real world and spend a few hours enjoying something else. Why would people want to rush through that?

 

Ugh!  Having slow reflexes is not a virtue.  Being overwhelmed by gameplay that requires that you respond in real time is not a virtue.  Take it from a 35 year old who played everything from Fallout 1 to Baldur's Gate to Planescape Torment.  The reason Bioware is moving towards real time gameplay is that it is superior.  The games of the past (including Dungeons and Dragons) used turn based systems because of technological limitations.  

 

Furthermore, the notion that adding time limitations to the decision making process "dumbs things down" or "appeals to the ADHD generation" is ridiculous.  Adding time limitations to the decision making process, if anything, makes games more mentally challenging.  Why do you think IQ tests have timers?

 

So prefer slow paced gameplay all you want, but please do not condescend to those who prefer real time combat.

[AlanC9]

Problem for me is: Divinity is a rather good turn-based combat simulator, but not a very intriguing RPG ... probably my big disapointment this year, still stuck in chap 2 because so boring...*sigh*

You didn't get the memo? RPG = complicated turn-based combat.

[In Exile]

You didn't get the memo? RPG = complicated turn-based combat.

ToEE or bust, apparently.

[AlanC9]

Origins is, so far, the only cRPG with activated abilities that I have really enjoyed the combat of. It's definitely a relief in Inquisition that said abilities aren't so constantly necessary as they were in DA II, but in exchange, they got even cheesier. I don't have anything against cheesiness in an ultimate sense, I suppose, but it very much clashes with the setting and the kind of stories they've been telling. Not only do I enjoy more realistic combat more, it would certainly fit in better with the world and all.

What counts as a "CRPG with activated abilities"?

[Gerula81]

Board and bring us ten undead Galls! Hey Warden, look at the Warden fortress, its yours now, and now its closed again, but you still have the courtyard!! But no worries, you get another one in the addon (not the main game), you can upgrade it so Oghren might survive off-screen!! Oh, and don't forget to find all ten love-letters scattered across the world! And the ten garnets! And the ten deep mushrooms! And the four Blackstone-contacts! And maybe one day if you are finished there is also that Darkspawn issue, but its okay, just take your time ...

 

And I don't really care if it is a "not a PC" game "not made for PC" or whatever, as long as I enjoy it, which I do...That's woot I think! Rosetinted glasses everywhere *mumbles like an old fart and vanishes in the distances*

 

That was (dissapointing)Awakening...I got nothing to say about that, although I just played it for the combat and the DA universe. It was an expansion that nobody would have played, had DAO not been so enthralling. It was also the first sign of the beast that would come, DAI.

[Vox Draco]

That was (dissapointing)Awakening...I got nothing to say about that, although I just played it for the combat and the DA universe. It was an expansion that nobody would have played, had DAO not been so enthralling. It was also the first sign of the beast that would come, DAI.

 

And what a fine, magnificent beast it became!

[addiction21]

ToEE or bust, apparently.

 

The game that gave me PTSD!!! Not really but did love that game.

 

In all honesty BioWare could make a top down rebuild of DAO in the new engine that is exactly the same and it still wouldn't be as good as DAO.

[Gerula81]

And what a fine, magnificent beast it became!

 

Okai now, you got passion I can appreciate that. Rose-glasses wise though please watch and judge fairly, what was DAI meant to be, Inquisitor :

 

 

Now... you tell me about the "magnificent beast" again, read that as "unfinished console MMO project, turned into a faulty, simplistic, single-player PC port"

 

I'm willing to debate all the points honestly, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of them forum rabble rousers that post 2k+ posts, with 0 gametime

[Vox Draco]

Now... you tell me about the "magnificent beast" again, read that as "unfinished console MMO project, turned into a faulty, simplistic, single-player PC port"

 

I'm willing to debate all the points honestly, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of them forum rabble rousers that post 2k+ posts, with 0 gametime

 

[In Exile]

The game that gave me PTSD!!! Not really but did love that game.

In all honesty BioWare could make a top down rebuild of DAO in the new engine that is exactly the same and it still wouldn't be as good as DAO.

DAO was a huge bust for a segment of BG2 fans. And it was killed pre-release for features like regenerating health and origins. Which of course are now much beloved.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

Ugh!  Having slow reflexes is not a virtue.  Being overwhelmed by gameplay that requires that you respond in real time is not a virtue.  Take it from a 35 year old who played everything from Fallout 1 to Baldur's Gate to Planescape Torment.  The reason Bioware is moving towards real time gameplay is that it is superior.  The games of the past (including Dungeons and Dragons) used turn based systems because of technological limitations.  

 

Furthermore, the notion that adding time limitations to the decision making process "dumbs things down" or "appeals to the ADHD generation" is ridiculous.  Adding time limitations to the decision making process, if anything, makes games more mentally challenging.  Why do you think IQ tests have timers?

 

So prefer slow paced gameplay all you want, but please do not condescend to those who prefer real time combat.

Then if people dont like that sort of thing they shouldnt play the game. I have said this time and time again. The reason people think Bioware can never get it right is precisely because they are trying to appeal to 6 or 7 different audience types instead of one or two. People who dont like war films dont watch them. They dont go to the director and ask them to cut out all the violence or the bad language. The film is what it is... made for a specific audience. Why Bioware and doing this wishy washy come one come all thing is beyond me.

 

They absolutely smashed it with Origins. Think what you will about the second game and Inquisition but they mediocre at best. People who want action shouldnt be playing RPG's. Thats a pretty bold statement but to use your anaolgy if I may, back in the good old days of pen and paper a lot of it wasnt action. it was planning and setting the scene. reading and listening were a big part of that. RPG's are not meant to be a screaming charge of hack and slash action. Much like diablo isnt really an RPG.

 

You prefer real time combat thats fine so do i when it fits. COD has real time action so do many other games. They dont pretend to be anything else. They are so successful because they stick with what works and they are unapologetic about it. I get people today are busier than ever but that means you dont get to play certain games that require forethought and strategy.  I cant play the command and conquer series without the pause button ( i doubt there is one anymore) I'm just not wired like that. I'm a slow paced kinda guy and thats who RPG's were originally made for.  Do you think fans of Duke Nukem would agree if you told them they needed to add a pause button?

[Archie591]

Meh. Arguing about taste and personal preference is quite meaningless. An action-RPG like DA:I isn't better or worse than the more old-school tactical RPG-s like DA:O. They are different from one another and appeal to different people. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I loved DA:O as it had a lot of similarities to the old Infinity engine games with a more modern look. However, after I played DA2 and now DA:I, I can barely tolerate DA:O. Clunky, rigid gameplay. Yes - it required more thought power and the combat and all the RPG elements are good, but seriously - I enjoy the story and the presentation far more than I enjoy a tactical combat simulator. As such, the later DA titles seem superior. They keep the great story and presentation while making the gameplay more fluid and responsive. Sure the tactical combat aspect suffers and is a bit dumbed down, however that is personal preference.

 

For example I consider ME2 to the best game in the ME series by far, even though it is the most dumbed down in terms of RPG elements and combat complexity. Don't care. Story and presentation trump everything for me. 

[Natureguy85]

DAO was a huge bust for a segment of BG2 fans. And it was killed pre-release for features like regenerating health and origins. Which of course are now much beloved.

 

The only reason I don't like this comparison is that I think it's apples and oranges to compare a shift to a new series with a shift within a series.

[dlux]

Bioware is no longer the old Bioware. This new generation of Bioware loves nothing but console action games.

Sometimes I wonder why EA even bought Bioware for 860 million dollars if they are only interested in making crappy action games with "awesome button" combat.

[Provi-dance]

Dear Bioware, try.. please, at least try, designing a combat ruleset that isn't an abomination like the ones implemented into DA2 and DAI. Slightly better than mediocre (DAO) isn't an option either (it lacked depth, sophistication and balance, enemies were level scaled and so on).

[Remmirath]

What counts as a "CRPG with activated abilities"?

Any CRPG that works on a method of activated abilities and cooldowns. I suppose it's the cooldowns I should've used to describe it, really; they're what I have more of a problem with (although there's a distressing tendency for the abilities to be fairly cheesy/unrealistic). It makes no sense, for example, that one can only shield bash every 10 seconds. If I can still create a viable character who mostly uses basic attacks and only the activated abilities that I think make sense, I'm happy enough with it, but in some games that just isn't possible because of how the combat is balanced. It was possible in Origins.

I prefer to focus on building my character to be good at whatever style of combat I'm going for, and then in actual combat have the decisions I make be tactical and strategic ones rather than which ability to use when. I also prefer magic-using types to play in a distinctly different way than warriors or rogues, and that often doesn't happen with activated abilities, because then the focus apparently becomes on making all of the classes as equal as possible -- whereas I'd prefer that they are perhaps equal in ultimate utility, but very different in how they achieve that.

Therefore, the fact that there is very little choice in how to build your character in DA:I (and, compared to Origins, DA II) is a serious flaw for me. Class-based weapon and armour restrictions from DA II were bad enough without adding race and level restrictions as well, and having no choice in ability point distribution leads to even less variety of character build. And no, the crafting system does not make up for it, at least not to me.
 

DAO was a huge bust for a segment of BG2 fans. And it was killed pre-release for features like regenerating health and origins. Which of course are now much beloved.

Yeah, that's true. I was never expecting it to actually be much like Baldur's Gate, so I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that it did have several very important (to me) game elements in common with it instead of unpleasantly surprised that it didn't end up being very similar. I still don't like regenerating health, the origins themselves were somewhat restrictive, and there were a few other features I miss or would've liked to see taken further (nobody actually dying, injuries not being as meaningful as they could've been), but overall it was -- to me, at least -- a solid cRPG with enjoyable, if not perfect, mechanics.
 

I loved DA:O as it had a lot of similarities to the old Infinity engine games with a more modern look. However, after I played DA2 and now DA:I, I can barely tolerate DA:O. Clunky, rigid gameplay. Yes - it required more thought power and the combat and all the RPG elements are good, but seriously - I enjoy the story and the presentation far more than I enjoy a tactical combat simulator. As such, the later DA titles seem superior. They keep the great story and presentation while making the gameplay more fluid and responsive. Sure the tactical combat aspect suffers and is a bit dumbed down, however that is personal preference.

In what way is the combat in DA:I fluid? I find it awkward. You have to constantly be readjusting to keep your character aimed the right way at the enemy (one might think a seasoned warrior would just, y'know, generally not turn their back on the thing they're trying to attack), a lot of times the animations keep going and you can't move forward very quickly, and the abilities themselves don't flow into each other any better than they ever did. Not only that, but fights are still operating on the "massive amounts of hit points" method they started using in DA II, which does not interesting combat make. It turns a dragon encounter from something exciting and fun into just another long slog.

Granted, I do prefer a tactical combat simulator, and I make no claim to the contrary. A blend of a classic RPG with an RTS would probably be my ideal game. But, yeah, I'm just not seeing the fluid and responsive aspect of DA:I's combat.
 

The only reason I don't like this comparison is that I think it's apples and oranges to compare a shift to a new series with a shift within a series.

Quite. I much prefer it if a series remains mechanically consistent, especially with regards to the tone and general style of the gameplay. Subtle refinements are fine, but changing just about everything about the gameplay -- especially the overall feel of it -- is, in my opinion, a bad move mid-series.

[MagisterMaximus]

I would rather they didn't.

[Zanallen]

Sometimes I wonder why EA even bought Bioware for 860 million dollars if they are only interested in making crappy action games with "awesome button" combat.

 

Sometimes I wonder why posters like you think that DA:O was the kind of game that Bioware wanted to make and the evil EA forced them to make something different with the sequels. I wonder why you don't see the obvious design path that Bioware has been moving along from the very beginning. The kind of game that Bioware wants to make is a cinematic action-RPG. They have been moving toward that ideal with each game they make, since long before EA came into the picture. If that isn't the kind of game you want them to make then, I am sorry but, you are probably better off looking elsewhere.

[In Exile]

The only reason I don't like this comparison is that I think it's apples and oranges to compare a shift to a new series with a shift within a series.

Bioware adverised the game as the spiritual successor to BG2. They pushed that since 2005 or so when the game was first accounced. They invited the comparison.

We can have a substantive debate as to whether there's any real mechanical difference between the DA games beyond them changing the control scheme to better fit their Zelda/MMO style bossed if you like.