293 réponses à ce sujet

[hong]

Read with comprehension.
We are talking about BG1. It's D&D 2ed.

Have you ever played D&D 3E?

[scrutinizer]

Have you ever played D&D 3E?

Yes. The point?

[hong]

Yes. The point?

Then you will know the error of assuming that DAI necessarily emulates the hack 'n slash genre (by which I assume you mean action CRPGs).

[scrutinizer]

Man. Are you trolling? Read the entire responses next time.

 

It does not emulate it. I said it resembles more hack'n'slash genre than D&D 2ed (which is a system in question here, NOT 3ed.). See the difference?

[hong]

Man. Are you trolling? Read the entire responses next time.
 
It does not emulate it. I said it resembles more hack'n'slash genre than D&D 2ed (which is a system in question here, NOT 3ed.). See the difference?

You said:

In this regard, DA:I equipment-based stats progression is more akin to hack'n'slash genre.

and it is not hard to show that DAI gear is rather clearly inspired by more recent evolutions of the D&D game, whether in addition to or in place of CRPG conventions. You never actually said anything about D&D 2E; and indeed, it would be most specious to attempt the claim that DAI should continue to ape a game system that is now 25 years old.

[scrutinizer]

Quote the whole response, would you kindly?

 

Indeed. You rephrased what I've written before.

Any change to attributes had to be done with equipment, sure, but these items are extremely rare. Let's take a look, shall we?

Nymph Cloak (charisma +2)

Helmet of Glory (charisma +1)

Gauntlets of Dexterity (dexterity 18)

Gauntlets of Ogre Power (strength 18/00)

and a couple of cursed items which lower your stats (like the Ring of Folly).

Don't know about the Ring of Strength +2. Never encountered it in BG1, and never seen it mentioned on any BG site. 

 

Overall, that's four items influencing your stats. A rather tiny group, and definitely cannot be treated as game-altering equipment. In this regard, DA:I equipment-based stats progression is more akin to hack'n'slash genre. Don't really see any BG1 influence here. If anything, that's a clear departure.

 

It's clear we are talking about BG1, which is based on DnD 2ed. You have anything else to add?

 

and it is not hard to show that DAI gear is rather clearly inspired by more recent evolutions of the D&D game, whether in addition to or in place of CRPG conventions.

Recent evolutions of the DnD game do not apply to BG1, do they?

[hong]

Quote the whole response, would you kindly?

I quoted exactly as much as was needed to make the point.
 

It's clear we are talking about BG1, which is based on DnD 2ed. You have anything else to add?

It's clear you are talking about BG1 in the context of a comparison to DAI. As such, you should keep the temporal context appropriate as well. It's nonsense to say that DAI should adhere to 2E, when D&D itself has moved with the times.
 

Recent evolutions of the DnD game do not apply to BG1, do they?

But they do to recent releases of Bioware games, if we are comparing them to prior Bioware games.

[scrutinizer]

I'll bite.

I quoted exactly as much as was needed to make the point.

A shameful journalism-esque practice, but I see you are desperate to prove your point, which actually has no relevance to the discussion I had with Realmzmaster.

 

It's clear you are talking about BG1 in the context of a comparison to DAI. As such, you should keep the temporal context appropriate as well. It's nonsense to say that DAI should adhere to 2E, when D&D itself has moved with the times.
 

No, I should not. BG1 and its use of DnD 2ed are constants here to which we refer. Other versions of DnD have no relevance in this discussion. But man, how you struggle to save your face.

 

But they do to recent releases of Bioware games, if we are comparing them to prior Bioware games.

It's BG1 only here. No 'buts'. Let it go.

[hong]

I'll bite.
A shameful journalism-esque practice,

You ARE a GamerGate guy, aren't you?
 

No, I should not. BG1 and its use of DnD 2ed are constants here to which we refer. Other versions of DnD have no relevance in this discussion.

Of course it has relevance to this discussion. Your point of reference has changed, and you must take this into account, if you are to fully understand how and why DAI's mechanics have evolved away from BG1's.
 

But man, how you struggle to save your face.

If you say so.
 

It's BG1 only here.

How odd, I could have sworn this was a thread called "the reason why I ... critize DAI".

[DaemionMoadrin]

Are you two quite done here now? If you go even further off-topic, you'll come right round back to the topic.

[Sidney]

From the posters here, it looks like the old-timers like us are breaking fairly heavily in favor of DAI. However, I don't know if that ratio is any different from the ratio for BSN members generally.

I think, oddly, it feels like older gamers have a greater tolerance for change and adaptation to those changes. Maybe because we have seen a lot more evolution of the technology and the genre over time. Also, my identity isn't tied up in the games I play and maybe that is an age/maturity thing.

It just seems like there is a lot of black/white love/hate on some folks. DAI isnt perfect, neither was DAO. I hated elements of DAO. Still enjoyed the heck out of it. I literally won't play ME1 anymore I hate soooo many elements of it....but I'd never say it was a bad game. I don't think I've ever played a perfect game. I've played a lot of excellent games but none I sat down wi afterwards and thought man there is nothing I would change.

[scrutinizer]

Of course it has relevance to this discussion. Your point of reference has changed, and you must take this into account, if you are to fully understand how and why DAI's mechanics have evolved away from BG1's.

It has not changed. You try to enforce that change. We compare DA:I to BG1. Nothing in between.

 

How odd, I could have sworn this was a thread called "the reason why I ... critize DAI".

 That's how it's called. And within this thread a discussion has started about how DA:I resembles BG1. 

 

Are we done here? From what I have gathered, you have nothing constructive to add.

 

Peace.

[hong]

It has not changed.

It certainly has. Where 2E was the contemporaneous version of D&D in 1998, it no longer is. In fact D&D has moved onwards by three editions since then. And hence, it is silly to require that DAI should similarly remain stationary with regard to its mechanics.

You try to enforce that change. We compare DA:I to BG1. Nothing in between.

And we are still comparing DAI to BG1. It just so happens that your comparison implied a sidetrek to D&D.
 

That's how it's called. And within this thread a discussion has started about how DA:I resembles BG1.

To be precise, a discussion about how DAI resembles BG1 in terms of its game mechanics, with specific reference to the D&D ruleset.
 

Are we done here? From what I have gathered, you have nothing constructive to add.
 
Peace.

I thought you said you were going to bite?

[CronoDragoon]

I think, oddly, it feels like older gamers have a greater tolerance for change and adaptation to those changes. Maybe because we have seen a lot more evolution of the technology and the genre over time. Also, my identity isn't tied up in the games I play and maybe that is an age/maturity thing.

It's possible that seeing cRPGs as a bastardization of PnP itself leads to the conclusion that there isn't really an essence of purity that needs to be preserved. I know Alan has been vocal about the key ways that cRPGs try but fail to emulate the tabletop experience.
 

It just seems like there is a lot of black/white love/hate on some folks. DAI isnt perfect, neither was DAO. I hated elements of DAO. Still enjoyed the heck out of it. I literally won't play ME1 anymore I hate soooo many elements of it....but I'd never say it was a bad game. I don't think I've ever played a perfect game. I've played a lot of excellent games but none I sat down wi afterwards and thought man there is nothing I would change.

I very much agree. I could easily make a case for why my two favorite games (Chrono Cross and Resident Evil 2) are awful games. At some point weighing benefits and flaws is irrelevant to the experience, and that goes for if the experience is positive or negative. Videogames, like music and movies, aren't really about dissecting the parts but about the overall experience and feeling they provide. Analysis is just a (fun and occasionally useful) tool to explain why.

As for the OP, it's fine to wish BioWare could go back to making games for PC only players, but there sure are compelling reasons for them not to do so, which may include the rotting gravestones of beloved niche gods like Black Isle and Troika. I don't think it's a coincidence that BioWare is one of the last old guard standing (even if you think it's only in name) and that they have been willing to experiment with genre and evolve over the years, for better or worse.

[scrutinizer]

http://idioms.thefre...y.com/I'll bite

 

Read what I have written before. You are asking questions and stating things that would elicit the same responses I've already given. Try to focus this time. This loop is unnecessary. 

[hong]

Read what I have written before. You are asking questions and stating things that would elicit the same responses I've already given.

Only because you have failed to provide any coherent response.

Try to focus this time.

Or perhaps you could just admit that you don't actually know anything about how D&D has evolved in the last 25 years, and hence your comparison of DAI's mechanics to action RPGs was uninformed.

This loop is unnecessary.

Indeed it is.

[Lianaar]

...that they have been willing to experiment with genre and evolve over the years, for better or worse.

Oh yes. Even if I dislike some directions they made, I applaud this so much. For this is how you better yourself. Sitting on your laurels and repeating the same pattern never brought excellence, only mediocracy in the long run.

Yeah, people should stick to the field they do best, but they should also try to become better, to experiment, to learn what else they are even better within their field. And trial-error repetition is what is path to improvement.

We can not validly claim they have not paid attention to the requests of the people on the forum. If you ask me, they paid TOO much attention to the requests and probably some issues I have with DA:I stems from that.

People said: we want this. Then they got it and now they claim: but when we said we want this, we actually had that in mind, not this.

[Realmzmaster]

I think, oddly, it feels like older gamers have a greater tolerance for change and adaptation to those changes. Maybe because we have seen a lot more evolution of the technology and the genre over time. Also, my identity isn't tied up in the games I play and maybe that is an age/maturity thing.

It just seems like there is a lot of black/white love/hate on some folks. DAI isnt perfect, neither was DAO. I hated elements of DAO. Still enjoyed the heck out of it. I literally won't play ME1 anymore I hate soooo many elements of it....but I'd never say it was a bad game. I don't think I've ever played a perfect game. I've played a lot of excellent games but none I sat down wi afterwards and thought man there is nothing I would change.

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head.  I have seen a lot of change in the genre over time. I have played many different crpgs and their variant systems. I am not locked into one playset or ruleset. I can see the changes in DAI and how the design relates back to BG1. A series of games based on one of my favorite rulesets (Das Schwarze AugeThe Dark Eye) is Realms of Arkania (Blades of Destiny, Star Trail and Shadows of Riva). I aslo like the newer games based on the ruleset: Drakensang. 

 

That ruleset is brutal compared to D & D ruleset.

[Sidney]

Interesting, but if so I am certainly the odd one out. I started out with RPG's in the late 70's (D&D), and among my favorites of the computer RPG's are the Ultima series, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout and Dragon Age....

 

And I have a very low tolerance to what happened with controls, character build, spells and tactics in Inquisition. I was expecting these 4 areas to be improvements or at least respectable continuations of said areas from Origins and DA2. Seeing them flushed out the toilet (in my opinion) disappoints me

 

Edit: "I don't think I've ever played a perfect game". Origins came close, the old Fallout games came close, but the only perfect game I've played is Planescape Torment.

 

 

Planescape is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly close to being perfect.

 

I think another aspect of this are the roll players and role players. For me Skyrim is a roll playing game about building up a character sheet not building a character. I consider Wolf Among Us a much better role playing experience even though it lacks any stats or leveling because I control who by Big B Wolf IS. Put another way, I know how my Shep, Wolf, the Inquisitor, Revan would respond to what happened in Paris today. I have no idea what the name of my Skyrim character is let alone anything meaningful about him other than he maxxed out destruction and alteration magic. The roll players are a lot less tolerant of game mechanics issues while the role players tend to be a lot less concerned about the character sheet and mechanisms.

[Owlbear]

InXile.  wasteland2   http://wasteland.inx...nment.com/store
Kickstarter. niche. made north of $2m.  won multiple game of the year awards for 2014...
not as pretty or beautiful as DA:I different gamestyle.  Good example of a niche game and an example of a potential path forward away from AAA studios...
 

 

No arguments: you can make a great game on a relatively small budget to appeal to a niche crowd. But you can't make Dragon Age for $2 million or, I suspect, even $20 million.

 

If what you want is a small budget indie game to appeal to your rarefied tastes, there's probably an indie developer out there who is happy to oblige. But if you want a game like Dragon Age you need a big budget, and to justify a big budget you need a broad audience, or at least a wealthy one.

 

In addition, a small, privately owned studio can make the games that the owners want to make even if they might not be the most profitable. Within a large, widely owned or publicly-traded company, there is still room for creativity and artistic expression, but there are other business concerns that are always present. Not only does a game have to be profitable, but it has to be more profitable than the other game that the studio could be making instead. Some more daring studios might take a chance on something a little more experimental or far afield, but they probably won't allocate a large budget towards it.

 

It's the same in many if not most industries: the kind of funds that are needed to create top-tier products generally come with lots of strings that result in artistic compromises and concessions to mass appeal. If you want a high-budget product that meets your exacting standards, the best way to get it is to become very, very rich and then hire a team to create something bespoke for you. Otherwise, you can have something cheap but bespoke, or you can settle for having something big and accept that it will only partially cater to your tastes.

[Dakota Strider]

Hey, I am all for diversity of games. And I certainly do not want a game franchise to tell the exact same story over and over again.  But, a franchise can keep the same formula, keep the game mechanics that work, and tell an entirely new story.

 

It is very easy to compare with book authors.  Let's say you are a fan of George R.R. Martin and read the Game of Thrones.  You liked the book so much, you wanted to read the next book in the series, so went and purchased A Clash of Kings.  But, after you started reading it, you realized that it was exactly the same book as Game of Thrones.  Well, you would be upset, that you basically just paid for the exact same book twice.  But, of course that would not happen, A Clash of Kings would be a continuation of the first book, staying true to the style of the author, and the setting.  And if you liked the first book, chances are you would like the second, and keep buying the other books in the series.  And when you get to the last book written, you wish he would hurry up and write some more, that follows the exact same formula that has you hooked.

 

Now, lets say you are in a mood for something entirely different.  So you pick up a J.K. Rowling, Edgar Rice Burroughs, or Anne Rice book.  Each one of them, has a great following of fans.  Many fans probably enjoy reading each of those authors, as well as many others.  However, when you pick up any well known author's book, you have a very good idea what type of book you are going to read.  And if the author suddenly attempted to change his/her style, and adopt another author's form of writing, abandoning many of the things you liked in their previous books, there is a good chance, you would not like it as much.  Of course, there will always be some people that like the hybridization of styles. 

 

But popular authors, for the most part, maintain the style they know best, and continue to write the type of books their audience knows and loves.  They make tweak their style, or even change genres.  But their style is almost always unique to them.  (I say almost, because there are always exceptions to the rules.)

 

Bioware created Dragon Age Origins, and gained a ship load (gotta keep Isabella happy) of fans.  So many fans, that DA2 set a record with Week 1 sales, with over 400,000 of those sales being pre-orders.  Obviously, fans that were expecting the same style...different story.   But, for whatever reason, Dragon Age fans did not receive DA2 as well.  After 10 weeks, DA2 sold a little more than a million copies...barely half of what DAO sold in the same time frame.  Many of us that played the game felt that something had changed, and it was not what we expected.

 

And it appears that Bioware has changed "author" styles again.  We are still in the same world, but so many things feel different, it is like the rules of magic and physics have changed. 

 

If Dragon Age Origins had been a massive failure, it would have been very understandable, that Bioware would try to make drastic changes to try to gain an audience from more successful styles of play.  But, DAO was successful, and all they needed to do to keep building on it, was to continue to "write the same style of book", with a different story, as they already proved works. 

[hong]

No. Let's not revisit this thing again.

[Realmzmaster]

@ Dakota Strider,

 

That may be where we differ even with books and authors I expect the author to offer something different. It may be a complete change in style within the same series. As long as the product (book, movie etc) is something I believe I will enjoy I will purchase it. I never go in thinking that the product will be the same or have the same style. I like it when an author changes up styles within a series. 

 

The same with games. I play different ones to experience the variant systems that are basically built on the D & D system, but I really appreciate the ones that diverge from it like Vampire Masquerade Bloodlines and Redemption. Even within those two games they do not play the same.

 

If the game is good and I can role play in it I will adapt to the mechanics.