198 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

So, the game that put Bioware on the map is the most overrated game of all time? That timeless and universally acclaimed classic and absolute gem of an RPG?   I laugh in your face, dear sir, for writing such nonsense.

 

Anyway, Dragon Age: Inqusition is the worst game Bioware has ever made. Even with its mixed reception the game is completely overrated.

 

It's got better writing and better characters than BG, that's for damn sure.

 

That can be said for pretty much every game they've released since BG. Probably even Sonic Chronicles.

 

I'm not completely rejecting the complaints people have about mechanics, but BG was a lot better in 1998 than it is in 2015.

[sinosleep]

So, the game that put Bioware on the map is the most overrated game of all time? That timeless and universally acclaimed classic and absolute gem of an RPG?   I laugh in your face, dear sir, for writing such nonsense.

 

Anyway, Dragon Age: Inqusition is the worst game Bioware has ever made. Even with its mixed reception the game is completely overrated.

It was good when it was released, but all this nonsense about being timeless is bunk and why I think it's overrated. The game hasn't aged well. 

[Jeffry]

 

And as far as ME 3 goes, good god is the crying about that the most overblown thing in the universe. Mechanically, it ONE AGAIN, improved on everything the previous game had done and brought back some things that had been removed after ME 1 like weapon mods. Other than the last 5 minutes it was a GREAT game. So I like to take the common sense approach when it comes to ME 3. 5 minutes of garbage doesn't magically override the previous 25 hours where I had a blast. Sorry guys, it just doesn't. 

 

The comparisons between what happened to Dragon Age and what happened to Mass Effect are ridiculous. Mass Effect got BETTER as it went for the most part, Dragon Age got worse. 

 

 

QFT. That shitstorm was absolutely ridiculous. Also I feel the last 5 minutes sucked that much because of Casey's words that the ending won't at all be A-B-C and that all our choices throughout the game will really really matter (which in the end they somewhat did, but in a different way than was expected). Plus we got the Extended Cut for free and together with Leviathan the ending actually made sense. And even though I don't usually like open endings, my god the last sign that my Shep was alive somewhere beneath the rubble before the game went to credits and Buzz Aldrin...

[dlux]

It's got better writing and better characters than BG, that's for damn sure.

Yep, they don't have a huge beastly goat man with huge horns that you can have sex with.
 

I'm not completely rejecting the complaints people have about mechanics, but BG was a lot better in 1998 than it is in 2015.

BG is just as good today as it was back in 1998 even with its dated graphics. Or do you think that Minecraft isn't very good because it also has dated graphics?

 

Anyway, Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't good today and won't be good in 15 years either because the gameplay is uninspired and boring.
 

It was good when it was released, but all this nonsense about being timeless is bunk and why I think it's overrated. The game hasn't aged well.

Now you have to explain why Enhanced Editions of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were recently released even though "they aren't timeless classics and completely overrated".

[Jeffry]

Now you have to explain why Enhanced Editions of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were recently released even though "they aren't timeless classics and completely overrated".

 

Nobody said anything about BG2 not being a timeless classic Only some aspects of BG1 were criticized here and to be honest, BG2 has aged way better than BG1, even though they look very similar from a graphics standpoint. So you are right in that regard, it is not about graphics. Namely it's about the game as a whole.

[Il Divo]

Yep, they don't have a huge beastly goat man with huge horns that you can have sex with.

 

 

Well, that's a bit misleading. It could be that BG1 really doesn't have much of a story to it....or characters. It's a glorified scavenger hunt. "Go here, collect letter explaining Sarevok's Plans, etc". That's the plot in a nut shell until about Chapter 6. Much like how people point out they shouldn't have to exit the Hinterlands to enjoy DA:I, I shouldn't have to wait until the last bit of the game to find some semblance of story. 

 

BG is just as good today as it was back in 1998 even with its dated graphics. Or do you think that Minecraft isn't very good because it also has dated graphics?

 

Anyway, Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't good today and won't be good in 15 years either because the gameplay is uninspired and boring.

 

 

This is usually when I point out BG1's enjoyment is often related to one's enjoyment of exploration and DnD 2.0. Since at its core, that's all the game is, with occasional dialogue. Dated graphics don't drag it down (Planescape: Torment is still amazing in my eyes). Gameplay with little else, on the other hand? That drags it down, imo.

 

Now you have to explain why Enhanced Editions of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were recently released even though "they aren't timeless classics and completely overrated".

 

 

Actually, I'd say that's grounds to call them over-rated. You disagree with other people's assessment of its quality. Kind of like how if someone calls Skyrim over-rated, usually its in relation to its high praise and large sales numbers. 

 

As I said before, I don't think finding a talking chicken qualifies BG1 for "best RPG" candidacy. 

[atlantico]

Nobody said anything about BG2 not being a timeless classic Only some aspects of BG1 were criticized here and to be honest, BG2 has aged way better than BG1, even though they look very similar from a graphics standpoint. So you are right in that regard, it is not about graphics. Namely it's about the game as a whole.

 

Sure a lot of people prefer BG2 over BG1, but I never did, for a number of reasons. To name one: the journal. It was both the most useful journal I've seen in a Bioware game and the most interesting one.

[Il Divo]

Sure a lot of people prefer BG2 over BG1, but I never did, for a number of reasons. To name one: the journal. It was both the most useful journal I've seen in a Bioware game and the most interesting one.

 

I don't recall BG2's journal system, but I couldn't stand the BG1 journal. The basic idea was to write it from the PC's view point, which creates a system that's counter to my character's personality. Often times, the character would interject his own opinion/sarcastic comments completely independent to how I envisioned him, not unlike the criticism which I have of auto dialogue. 

[atlantico]

I don't recall BG2's journal system, but I couldn't stand the BG1 journal. The basic idea was to write it from the PC's view point, which creates a system that's counter to my character's personality. Often times, the character would interject his own opinion/sarcastic comments completely independent to how I envisioned him, not unlike the criticism which I have of auto dialogue. 

 

No, the basic idea was that it explained what was happening and after it happened, it explained the conclusion in prose. Sure it was from someone's point of view, but well. It's wasn't in your face and hardly fair to compare it to auto-dialogue. It was also fairly neutral and written as a journal or diary.

 

http://baldursgate.w...om/wiki/Journal

[Il Divo]

No, the basic idea was that it explained what was happening and after it happened, it explained the conclusion in prose. Sure it was from someone's point of view, but well. It's wasn't in your face and hardly fair to compare it to auto-dialogue. It was also fairly neutral and written as a journal or diary.

 

http://baldursgate.w...om/wiki/Journal

 

That's my point. It explained it in my character's point of view, which is itself contrary to the point of the experience. I'm a hardy adventurer. Why am I writing my own thoughts in as bland a style as possible? 

 

In the opposite case, it could also be far from neutral. Case in point: half the quests in Candlekeep involved your character making sarcastic quips regarding the nature of his duties:

 

Firebead Elevenhair, an old mage who makes the occasional visit here from Beregost has left and identity scroll with Tethtoril in the innger grounds. I swear, without me to run its endless errands, this keep would crumble into the very dust from which it sprang. 

 

It's autodialogue, but without the cinematic flair attached. 

[atlantico]

That's my point. It explained it in my character's point of view, which is itself contrary to the point of the experience. I'm a hardy adventurer. Why am I writing my own thoughts in as bland a style as possible? 

 

As I said, it isn't in your face. Calling yourself a hardy adventurer in BG1 is gilding the lily quite a bit, you're just some sheltered kid who grew up in a cloister. Game-wise you'll reach level 8ish. 

 

It's just a functional way to jot down your thoughts. Leave it at that, because it's useful to the player. 

 

Besides, you have to wade through lines of dialogue which probably won't match your idea of your character either, unless Bioware managed to screw up the journal for you but read your mind when writing the dialogue.

 

(cinematic flair, I lol'ed)

[AlanC9]

Jeez... now I gotta dig out the CGW issue with the big BG2 preview. IIRC they said something to the effect that the BG2 journal was so much improved that it reminded them how lousy the journal in the first game was.

[Linkenski]

Yep, they don't have a huge beastly goat man with huge horns that you can have sex with.
 

BG is just as good today as it was back in 1998 even with its dated graphics. Or do you think that Minecraft isn't very good because it also has dated graphics?

 

Anyway, Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't good today and won't be good in 15 years either because the gameplay is uninspired and boring.
 

Now you have to explain why Enhanced Editions of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 were recently released even though "they aren't timeless classics and completely overrated".

Minecraft doesn't have "dated graphics". It has retro-stylized graphics and actually a surprisingly advanced technology in how good the shading and lighting is on very low-res textures and simple geomitry. It's a bad comparison, especially since Minecraft is not an old game.

[AlanC9]

Besides, you have to wade through lines of dialogue which probably won't match your idea of your character either, unless Bioware managed to screw up the journal for you but read your mind when writing the dialogue.
 

Yep. I put up with this in CRPG dialogue because there's no alternative short of going to a keyword system. That doesn't mean I want to put up with it in the journal.

[atlantico]

Jeez... now I gotta dig out the CGW issue with the big BG2 preview. IIRC they said something to the effect that the BG2 journal was so much improved that it reminded them how lousy the journal in the first game was.

 

Were they trying to hype up the game at the time? I know Bioware hype. It makes for great fertilizer.

 

Yep. I put up with this in CRPG dialogue because there's no alternative short of going to a keyword system. That doesn't mean I want to put up with it in the journal.

 

Well, terribly sorry you had to put up with something. Too bad?

 

That being said, you're wrong. There could have been a matter of fact description used in lieu of dialogue, no need for keywords. Just dry description of what you intend to say and in what tone. Or whatever pleases your lordship. 

 

Then you could have just imagined context, like the journal in BG2.

 

But no, they forced dialogue on you, made you put up with it and put it in your face. And then almost 20 years later, you're complaining about that it was the same in the journal of BG1, except not as explicit and not in your face. 

 

And you defend the dialogue. Good. I have seen everything now. 

[AlanC9]

Were they trying to hype up the game at the time? I know Bioware hype. It makes for great fertilizer.

This is another one of those "the gaming press is always evil and corrupt" bits, right? All I can say in reply is that I agreed with it at the time, and I agree with it now. BG2's journal was yet another thing Bio improved over BG1's implementation. So even if they were bribed into writing it, It doesn't matter.

Well, terribly sorry you had to put up with something. Too bad?

Don't be stupid. If I didn't think those tradeoffs were worth making, I wouldn't be here, because I wouldn't play CRPGs.

That being said, you're wrong. There could have been a matter of fact description used in lieu of dialogue, no need for keywords. Just dry description of what you intend to say and in what tone. Or whatever pleases your lordship.

Hmm. I'll give you a "technically correct" there since it's theoretically workable. I can't recall this actually being done in practice, and it sounds like it would be awful. But yeah, it's possible.

But no, they forced dialogue on you, made you put up with it and put it in your face. And then almost 20 years later, you're complaining about that it was the same in the journal of BG1, except not as explicit and not in your face.

And you defend the dialogue. Good. I have seen everything now.

Huh? If you think the dialogue is a problem, why do you want the dialogue approach taken with the journal? And if you don't think the dialogue is a problem, why shouldn't I defend the dialogue?

I seem to have really confused you about my position. I'll try again. I consider limiting my control over the PCs precise dialogue to be a necessary limitation of any CRPG which implements dialogue beween PCs and NPCs that sounds like real dialogue. I like it when that dialogue sounds like real dialogue, so I'm willing to pay that cost. But I don't see that price as being worth paying for a journal. The only thing I want from a journal is enough functionality so I don't have to keep reaching for a notepad myself. Writing it in the PC's supposed tone is all cost and no benefit.

[Il Divo]

As I said, it isn't in your face. Calling yourself a hardy adventurer in BG1 is gilding the lily quite a bit, you're just some sheltered kid who grew up in a cloister. Game-wise you'll reach level 8ish. 

 

 

Granted, you do start as a bit of a scrub. Still, by Chapter 4's start, you can potentially have dealt with an army of gnolls, an entire bandit camp, amongst other things. Sure, you haven't killed dragons but that's due to BG2 reaching crazy high power scales. Level cap of 8 is more than enough to be a seasoned adventurer. 

 

Besides, you have to wade through lines of dialogue which probably won't match your idea of your character either, unless Bioware managed to screw up the journal for you but read your mind when writing the dialogue.

 

 

I wouldn't say that's the best defense of the journal system. Yes, we know cRPG's inherently involve limitations that pen and paper does not (hence why I think tabletop is superior). No, I don't look at that as an endorsement to have character control taken away. Inherent limitations to the system does not mean I want even more limitations enforced. 

 

I find your point odd mainly given the dislike of auto dialogue. You consider the journal being written in the style of a diary to be important enough to surpass BG2 in quality, but shy away from an eerily similar system employed in modern Bioware games. As you say, it's not in your face, but being able to avoid a feature shouldn't be its best quality. 

[Il Divo]

 

But no, they forced dialogue on you, made you put up with it and put it in your face. And then almost 20 years later, you're complaining about that it was the same in the journal of BG1, except not as explicit and not in your face. 

 

And you defend the dialogue. Good. I have seen everything now. 

 

Alan pretty much hit this one out of the park. The cost of the dialogue system is limited character control. The benefit is having something that looks like a conversation between two characters. The journal system being written from your POV provides a limitation contradictory to role-playing, but without any of the pay off.  

[atlantico]

This is another one of those "the gaming press is always evil and corrupt" bits, right? 

Is it? No, that's hardly fair. It's a healthy dash of salt used when a developer is explaining a new feature to an upcoming game, how it's better than before, an improvement and so on and so forth. As is expected of them, they're selling a product. Look, our new and improved journal of awesomeness. 

 

Great that you agree with the hype, but spare me describing it as factual statement from the developer.

 

If you think the dialogue is a problem, why do you want the dialogue approach taken with the journal?

 

 

That would be because I don't see the dialogue as a problem. I'm fine with the limitations of it as I am fine with the journal in BG1, in fact I'm really impressed with it. 

 

I like it when that dialogue sounds like real dialogue, so I'm willing to pay that cost.

 

 

I like it when that journal sounds like a real journal, so I'm willing to pay that cost. Except that's not fair, to me it's not cost, it's a limitation of the cRPG. 

 

When I do something bad in BG1, the journal is more sarcastic and when I do something kind, it's more kind. A perfect 1:1 for my character? Nope, but neither is the dialogue. 

 

The tone of the journal is very neutral, never dripping with sarcasm or any emotion. It is something that could be a functional journal for just about anyone, but you're stuck on the least interesting thing about it. 

 

The most interesting thing about it is how it is used to bypass the limitations of the narrative of BG1, which is very much technical, due to low-res graphics, little dialogue and sometimes difficult to follow plot. The journal tells the story. It explains quests, it does not give you bulletpoints. It treats you as a being with brain-capacity, it does not dole out quest-markers. 

 

So in the end, the journal in BG1 brings the game far closer to the actual AD&D session that BG1 was based on. That's the great thing about it, not how it "sounds", which is very nitpicky.

 

The BG1 journal made for a great tool and gave the story much needed character and depth. Sorry if you couldn't deal with the tone of it.

[atlantico]

Alan pretty much hit this one out of the park. The cost of the dialogue system is limited character control. The benefit is having something that looks like a conversation between two characters. The journal system being written from your POV provides a limitation contradictory to role-playing, but without any of the pay off.  

What are you talking about? Cost of dialogue system is not limited character control. 

 

How late is it in your part of the world?

 

Also, by the end of the game you're potentially level 8 and that's only if your a thief. A mage makes level 5 or 6 at most. And when exactly on this journey between level 1 and 8 do you become this gruff seasoned adventurer that wouldn't write his journal in a neutral, matter-of-fact way?

 

Level 3?

[Il Divo]

What are you talking about? Cost of dialogue system is not limited character control. 

 

How late is it in your part of the world?

 

Someone's getting testy.

 

The point of a key word system is you imagine anything you want in place of the words. The point of a dialogue system is far more limited lines, but the intent is to simulate with the character something actually resembling a conversation. 

 

Bioware may provide limited dialogue options (anywhere from 2-6), but that also allows a conversation to flow more naturally.

 

Prewritten journal entries for the character takes away control and provides nothing of substance. There's no role-playing benefit or increased flow of conversation, quite the opposite. It assumes certain things about your character which, much like the worst examples of auto dialogue, shouldn't be assumed. 

[Il Divo]

 

Also, by the end of the game you're potentially level 8 and that's only if your a thief. A mage makes level 5 or 6 at most. And when exactly on this journey between level 1 and 8 do you become this gruff seasoned adventurer that wouldn't write his journal in a neutral, matter-of-fact way?

 

Level 3?

 

At what point in the adventure am I required to write a journal, period? As I said, it's an unnecessary, pointless restriction in who my character is. But given the preq that I am keeping a journal, maybe my character's extremely charismatic. I could play a Sorcerer, after all. So there's one issue.

 

For another, at Level 2 I'm tough enough to take on an army of gnolls in their stronghold, amongst other things. So there's that. It's a pretty weak restriction that you think all low level characters, from a million different class/race/roleplay combinations, will fit into a narrow conception of a journal system. Much as anything else, a journal/diary isn't just meant for matter of fact, pointless observations.  

[atlantico]

 

The point of a key word system is you imagine anything you want in place of the words. The point of a dialogue system is far more limited lines, but the intent is to simulate with the character something actually resembling a conversation. 

 

Sure you can imagine it, but the reply will be whatever the writer wanted. A keyword system isn't any better in the end, except you can imagine your character's line and then be very surprised when the reply won't even make sense, because it doesn't fit what you imagined. 

 

The cost of a dialogue system is not limited character control, you'll find a keyword system has exactly the same limitations. It's just that half the dialogue happens in your head. 

 

Dialogue system is the compromise, get predetermined lines which have predetermined answers, which fit and are appropriate. 

 

 

At what point in the adventure am I required to write a journal, period? As I said, it's an unnecessary, pointless restriction in who my character is. 

 

 

.... I just remembered something, I have to return some videotapes.

[Jeffry]

Screw the journal and screw the hype, what does it matter when BG2 lived up to it and surpassed BG1 in like every important aspect?

[atlantico]

Screw the journal and screw the hype, what does it matter when BG2 lived up to it and surpassed BG1 in like every important aspect?

 

It's the unimportant aspects which endear me and that's where BG1 has the sequel beaten hands down