848 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

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.

I think it's just that a bunch of people skilled from BG/NWN to DAO without playing KoTOR. DAO is just KoTOR with a more PC friendly UI and more MMO like mechanics.

[Charcoal15]

Dear Bioware, make whatever you want as long as it improves on Dragon age 2.

[Natureguy85]

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.

 

You'd be surprised how much a name can be worth to a company.

 

 

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.

 

Fair enough if it was advertised that way, though you can debate how closely a "spiritual successor" needs to imitate its predecessor.

[Realmzmaster]

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 set itself up for the comparison. They told gamers that DAO would be the spiritual successor to the BG series. That begs for comparison to both BG1 and BG2.

 

DAO deviated from the BG design. DAO had regenerating health, no permadeath, main character death does not mean game over, an almost unlimited supply of healing potions and spells, and four party members instead of six.

 

Healing was now done by mages and the priest class is non-existent. Most if not all of those choices came from MMO influence. Most of the early crpgs had permadeath as a mechanic. Knowing that your party member could die permanently  changes how combat is approached. Non-regenerating health changes how combat is approached, because more strategy and resource conservation has to be taken into account.

 

I find it interesting that some posters are saying that DAI is more like an MMO when it is DAO that borrowed ideas from MMO. DAI is actually going back to BG1 for inspiration. DAI shares a great deal of design elements with BG1. IMHO

 

But. YMMV.

[In Exile]

Bioware set itself up for the comparison. They told gamers that DAO would be the spiritual successor to the BG series. That begs for comparison to both BG1 and BG2.

DAO deviated from the BG design. DAO had regenerating health, no permadeath, main character death does not mean game over, an almost unlimited supply of healing potions and spells, and four party members instead of six.

Healing was now done by mages and the priest class is non-existent. Most if not all of those choices came from MMO influence. Most of the early crpgs had permadeath as a mechanic. Knowing that your party member could die permanently changes how combat is approached. Non-regenerating health changes how combat is approached, because more strategy and resource conservation has to be taken into account.

I find it interesting that some posters are saying that DAI is more like an MMO when it is DAO that borrowed ideas from MMO. DAI is actually going back to BG1 for inspiration. DAI shares a great deal of design elements with BG1. IMHO

But. YMMV.

I find the way the open world works is a high budget, better version of BG1. It's honestly a love letter to that kind of design.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Healing was now done by mages and the priest class is non-existent. Most if not all of those choices came from MMO influence. Most of the early crpgs had permadeath as a mechanic. Knowing that your party member could die permanently  changes how combat is approached. Non-regenerating health changes how combat is approached, because more strategy and resource conservation has to be taken into account.

 

The real quibble here is that a lot of the settings with permadeath also have priests capable of raising the dead. So it wasn't impossible to get them back, just took resources and/or advanced characters in order to do so.

 

DA doesn't whatsoever - dead is dead. Unless you're an NPC that they decide needs to be around later, and in which case they invalidate your choice and throw some horribly written BS in to explain it.

[AlanC9]

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.

So NWN/NWN2 wouldn't cause a problem because feat use limits were generally based on uses per day rather than cooldowns? Yeah, I see it.

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.

And now you've lost me. How is "which ability to use when" not a tactical decision? Unless "tactical" implies some sort of simulation thing?

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.

From where I sit DA:O is far worse than the sequels for rogue and warrior builds. Of course, that's because the activated abilities count for me. If I wasn't using them I suppose DA:O would look better, but in that case I'd probably think all three games were awful.

[AlanC9]

The real quibble here is that a lot of the settings with permadeath also have priests capable of raising the dead. So it wasn't impossible to get them back, just took resources and/or advanced characters in order to do so.

DA doesn't whatsoever - dead is dead. Unless you're an NPC that they decide needs to be around later, and in which case they invalidate your choice and throw some horribly written BS in to explain it.

Sure, and D&D games do the reverse. You can be raised until the plotline says you shouldn't be, and then you can't be. (Order of the Stick actually gets this aspect of D&D right, FWIW.)

Edit: by "right" I mean that the game-world doesn't contradict the ruleset. So, for instance, killing a rich powerful bad guy just isn't going to work since he'll certainly have been clever enough to arrange for a quick rez. (Though looting his corpse will still be beneficial even if he won't stay dead.)

[In Exile]

Sure, and D&D games do the reverse. You can be raised until the plotline says you shouldn't be, and then you can't be. (Order of the Stick actually gets this aspect of D&D right, FWIW.)

Order of the Stick does a brilliant job showing how insane a reality with actual D&D rules would be if people were aware of the rules like the players.

[ORTesc]

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.

 

This is really the issue. Dragon Age has gone from "spiritual successor" to "action rpg with a cool tactical camera". When you again claim it's a game made for pc players by pc players and release Inquisition, people aren't going to be so happy.

 

I'll never understand why the decision was made to throw away that which sold so well. It's almost like EA does it intentionally simply to screw with their customers/investors.

[Salaya]

If there is something questionable when looking back to the way Inquisition was advertised, that line about "Pc game made by PC gamers" would be the worst mistake Bioware did. The game is playable, and you need to get used to it if you are playing PC, but it is perfectly obvious to almost anyone that it was not designed with PC in mind or as a priority. 

 

That said, I don't understand people who simply don't play the game because of this. Personally, the inabilty to multiselect characters was a big backstep for me, but after an hour or so, you get used to it and the game becomes perfectly playable. I mean, there are cases much, much worse than this that would justify stop playing (games that directly "recommend" you using gamepads or do not allow KB+M), but I don't think Inquistion deserves that. 

[Gerula81]

This kind of says it all, past all the crap they advertised, just bare bones concept of the game: Bioware (Once the epitomy of RPG heaven) really  wanted to make a Skyrim like console RPGlike game for 12 year olds

 

http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/

[Realmzmaster]

This kind of says it all, past all the crap they advertised, just bare bones concept of the game: Bioware (Once the epitomy of RPG heaven) really  wanted to make a Skyrim like console RPGlike game for 12 year olds

 

http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/

 

That is funny because many of those people who bought Skyrim and DAI are not 12 year old console players. I myself am way over 12 by several magnitudes as are a lot of posters on this forum. Guess what I like DAI. It hearkens back to the days of BG1 design and not an MMO. Yes I have been playing long enough to know what I am talking about. DAO and DA2 have more elements of MMOs than DAI. IMHO.

 

So what if DAI began at its roots as a multi-player experience so did Neverwinter Nights (Bioware Game) and more recently Kingdoms of Amalur by 38 studios (which was an offshoot of the in-development multi-player Copernicus) . In fact the single player campaign in NWN was not its strength, the multi-player and toolkit were the strengths of NWN. The sheer amount of persistent worlds create with that toolkit for multi-player experience was incredible. The Multi-player and toolkit made NWN successful not the single player campaign. 

[AlanC9]

Right. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Bio's always been fans of MP. They almost sank the NWN OC with their excessive focus on MP; companions weren't added until a few months before release, which is why a lot of useful things like accessing their inventories had to wait for the expansions and/or mods.

[In Exile]

This is really the issue. Dragon Age has gone from "spiritual successor" to "action rpg with a cool tactical camera". When you again claim it's a game made for pc players by pc players and release Inquisition, people aren't going to be so happy.

I'll never understand why the decision was made to throw away that which sold so well. It's almost like EA does it intentionally simply to screw with their customers/investors.

It's clearly a game made for the PC. The parts of the UI that are actually bad for the PC are the parts I've not seen very many complain about here - like the console menu inputs, the icons, etc. Most related to the combat not being like DAO. Which has nothing to do with the PC UI really.

People need to stop saying it was EA. Bioware has moved away from isometric RPGs since BG1. It's not the game they want to make.

EA bought them to make TOR. I think that's pretty obvious to everyone.

Edit: I also find something weird about a complaint that Bioware should have recycled DAO ad infinitum. And anyway we saw what happened with that - DAA which was a comical flop.

[In Exile]

Right. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Bio's always been fans of MP. They almost sank the NWN OC with their excessive focus on MP; companions weren't added until a few months before release, which is why a lot of useful things like accessing their inventories had to wait for the expansions and/or mods.

And premium modules were their proto DLC. Bioware isn't the company people have built up this metal fantasy about. Theyre the compamu that looked at BG1 and said that they needed a tigher plot, at BG2 and said that it was the story more like a movie, at KoTOR and said that they needed to voice the protagonist.

Bioware has essentially had three eras post BG2. First they tried to cash in on MP and D&D with NWN which flopped comically. Then they had KoTOR, which created their cinematic focus, and led to JE, ME and DAO. Remember, ME when initially made had tactical camera and full party control (see X06).

DAO was just KoTOR with fully party control. Once ME was a success Bioware adopted its approach.

It basically went: KoTOR influenced games (JE, DAO and sort of ME) and then ME influenced games (ME2-3 obviously, DA2 and now DAI).

DAI is a cornerstone for Bioware. They want back HARD to a lot of old BG1 elements. The design of exploration etc. is very reminiscent.

The main take away - Bioware doesn't give a fig about combat. There will always be people who loved ToEE and IWD but Bioware has never wanted to cater to that fan base. If you (for whatever reason) like a Bioware game for the combat you're SOL in the sense there's no guarantee they'll follow up on it. They really don't focus on it. They're the anti COD and Halo in that sense.

[AlanC9]

Well, NWN moved plenty of copies. But the MP flopped, yeah, particularly the kind of MP that Bio thought the game was going to be about.

[In Exile]

Well, NWN moved plenty of copies. But the MP flopped, yeah, particularly the kind of MP that Bio thought the game was going to be about.

I meant the MP (and critically flopped). The persistent world never happened.

[AlanC9]

Well, it's not like Bio ever really thought about persistent worlds. What they were aiming at was DM'd campaign co-op multiplayer, which flopped even worse than persistent worlds. But since the vast majority of NWN copies were never used for any kind of MP, I suppose it's pointless to talk about which kind of MP flopped worse.

I can see why Bio got scared off of MP for a while.

[In Exile]

Well, it's not like Bio ever really thought about persistent worlds. What they were aiming at was DM'd campaign co-op multiplayer, which flopped even worse than persistent worlds. But since the vast majority of NWN copies were never used for any kind of MP, I suppose it's pointless to talk about which kind of MP flopped worse.

I can see why Bio got scared off of MP for a while.

Right, I forgot about the DM multiplayer. Wasn't really a forumite until KoTOR. Took one peek at the forums post NWN release and just went running the other way.

[herkles]

I meant the MP (and critically flopped). The persistent world never happened.

I know several Persitant World servers that are still up and running to this day with a good size community of players I kind of wish that there was another game with that sort of Mulitplayer around, but alas.

[Big Metal Unit]

Fact: I'm over 30 years old and I enjoyed Skyrim. Fact: Generalisations and stereotypes are not valid arguments nor are they facts.

 

LIES.

 

Back in the good old days, they knew how to make real [music/games/movies].  Not like today.  Everything now is just dumbed down crap for kids who don't know what real [gaming/music/movies] used to be.

 

The water tasted better too.

[Giantdeathrobot]

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*

 

That was my experience too. Sure, the turn-based combat is good enough, and character building is great. Apart from that however? The story is a snoozefest, the setting so nondescript it hurts, the quests boring as sin (eh), and the characters one-dimentional cardboard cut-outs. If you want an IWD-like game, it's good. If you want something like BG2, well, Original Sin is not it. I do believe the game was a bit overhyped by the folks who swear by turn-based combat to the point it makes them overlook the glaring flaws the game has as an RPG. It's still good, just not amazing.

 

And anyway, if I want interesting turn-based combat, X-Com: Enemy Unknown and Xenonauts beat everything else on the market already as far as I'm concerned.

 

Besides, one thing that amazes me in this topic is the whole ''Bioware was forced to make non-BG2 like games by EA!'' which is just... what? Ever since KOTOR they have stopped making those. PC is their lead platform, eh? Then why was KOTOR released on Xbox, and both Mass Effect and Jade Empire were released on consoles before getting PC releases (imagine the anti-EA outcry if they did the same for Inquisition)? All of this predates EA I might add, while Origins (the fabled return to the roots) was released two years after they were bought by EA. I have no lost love for EA at all, but they are an all too convenient scapegoat for things Bioware have decided for themselves.

 

To me, seeing their release history, the whole idea that Bioware is out, wants to or should remake BG2 is a complete and total fabrication. They kinda brought this on themselves with Origins's bipolar marketing, but it's still crystal clear that it's not the kind of game that makes them tick anymore.