198 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

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. 

 

 

Not at all. You decide exactly what you're saying (unless you want to interpret your character as simply saying that exact word which would be amusing). But conversations feel incoherent. It gives maximum freedom of expression....at the cost of having some pretty insane character interactions. 

 

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

 

 

As above, the dialogue system means that you are restricting your character to a list of pre-ordained responses. As you rightfully point out, they feel more appropriate. 

 

This restriction limits your ability to be completely control in your character's responses, but gives other benefits. The journal system does no such thing. It's a complete restriction on your character's person, but since you're not interacting with another character, the benefits disappear.  

[In Exile]

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?

Although that was the majority opinion it was by no means unanimous. There are lots of people who think Bioware went wrong when they made BG2.

[atlantico]

Although that was the majority opinion it was by no means unanimous. There are lots of people who think Bioware went wrong when they made BG2.

 

I'm out of likes for the day, so: Like!

 

 

Not at all. You decide exactly what you're saying (unless you want to interpret your character as simply saying that exact word which would be amusing). But conversations feel incoherent. It gives maximum freedom of expression....at the cost of having some pretty insane character interactions. 

 

Yes, I get what you're saying, but I draw the line at philosophical meanderings on roleplaying aspects of a severely limited, but otherwise a groundbreaking classic, cRPG from 1998. 

 

I don't do headcanon like you do. 

 

I prefer pen&paper, where my imagination is truly free.

[Auztin]

I don't see how Dragon Age:Origins is as loved you people think.I play it a few times.I've only beat it 5 times ever since 2009.It is not that great a game.All they did was copy paste a lot of stuff on there as well.Alot of the spells did the same thing & looked the same,even talents.Even backdrops looked the same(huge Dragon Age 2 complaint which isn't justified).All games required a mage & warrior.Combat was unrealistically slow & borderline annoyingly boring in Origins.When I play Origins I see it as a old game with cool characters & storyline(even if be cliche).Gameplay had 1 strategy-like element that I didn't even use because AI was to stupid do I what tell it.Origins was not a Tactical,Isometric view RTS with RPG elements when I played it.It was a Action RPG with an old engine.What is the difference between a Action RPG & a cRPG?Computer Role Playing Game vs Action Role Playing Game,hmm.Isn't one exclusive to PC while the other isn't?I don't know if cRPG is a valid genre when the game was always multi platform & from what I can tell Bioware has always been interested in multiplayer.

[AlanC9]

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.

What, you thought Bio wrote that their BG1 journal was "lousy"? No, they didn't write the piece; that was the CGW first look at BG2. I don't see how I gave you the wrong idea there.

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. 

What's unfair about describing a limitation as a cost of the thing that causes the limitation? Anyway, the point is that the journal approach in BG1 didn't work for me, for the reasons stated, and I'm glad they dropped 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. 

 
And there we have the core difference. I don't need or want to read a journal to find out what I just played. All I want from a journal is for it to handle the stuff I had to write on a notepad before journals came along. It's like an automap for the plot.

[Jeffry]

I don't see how Dragon Age:Origins is as loved you people think.I play it a few times.I've only beat it 5 times ever since 2009.It is not that great a game.All they did was copy paste a lot of stuff on there as well.Alot of the spells did the same thing & looked the same,even talents.Even backdrops looked the same(huge Dragon Age 2 complaint which isn't justified).All games required a mage & warrior.Combat was unrealistically slow & borderline annoyingly boring in Origins.When I play Origins I see it as a old game with cool characters & storyline(even if be cliche).Gameplay had 1 strategy-like element that I didn't even use because AI was to stupid do I what tell it.Origins was not a Tactical,Isometric view RTS with RPG elements when I played it.It was a Action RPG with an old engine.What is the difference between a Action RPG & a cRPG?Computer Role Playing Game vs Action Role Playing Game,hmm.Isn't one exclusive to PC while the other isn't?I don't know if cRPG is a valid genre when the game was always multi platform & from what I can tell Bioware has always been interested in multiplayer.

 

Well, I think for a game to qualify for the vague action RPG category, at least the action must be real-time. Which was not the case in DAO. I honestly loved Origins when I first played it in the middle of 2010 and I still do. But since then I looked at it more critically, because without mods the graphics did not age well (not to mention the crappy memory-leak-ridden engine), even with mods there is a horrendous amount of bugs never patched ranging from false dialogue flags, bugged abilities to game-breaking bugs (even mods couldn't catch anything, especially in the buggy mess Awakening), the game is terribly balanced, the story is a bit cliche and so on. But it managed to get so many things right which BioWare weren't able to replicate to that degree in later DA games and the game's mistakes are easily overshadowed by all those various things the game excells at. Also, people have been waiting forever for that game and I don't recall any other RPG this good that came out around the same time (not counting 2010's Mass Effect 2); this should not be a factor when deciding whether a game is good or not, but often is and it kinda sticks with many people even after a long time.

[Auztin]

Well, I think for a game to qualify for the vague action RPG category, at least the action must be real-time. Which was not the case in DAO. I honestly loved Origins when I first played it in the middle of 2010 and I still do. But since then I looked at it more critically, because without mods the graphics did not age well (not to mention the crappy memory-leak-ridden engine), even with mods there is a horrendous amount of bugs never patched ranging from false dialogue flags, bugged abilities to game-breaking bugs (even mods couldn't catch anything, especially in the buggy mess Awakening), the game is terribly balanced, the story is a bit cliche and so on. But it managed to get so many things right which BioWare weren't able to replicate to that degree in later DA games and the game's mistakes are easily overshadowed by all those various things the game excells at. Also, people have been waiting forever for that game and I don't recall any other RPG this good that came out around the same time (not counting 2010's Mass Effect 2); this should not be a factor when deciding whether a game is good or not, but often is and it kinda sticks with many people even after a long time.

Dragon Age:Origins was in real time just incredibly slow,though.

[DanteYoda]

While the open worlds are awesome eye candy, its just that eye candy not much substance passed the beautiful..

[Jeffry]

Dragon Age:Origins was in real time just incredibly slow,though.

 

While it wasn't turn-based like BG or other D&D based games, on the other hand it certainly wasn't real time as DAI, Skyrim or Diablo. It is not because of the pace of the game the combat system sometimes felt wonky. It could be seen especially when playing as a melee in 3rd person mode and trying closing in on somebody running away. If it was truly real time, you could just hit him immediately as you ordered your attack. There are some sort of turns or cycles working behing the real time facade, it is more close to hybrid systems than truly real time ones. Also if it was truly real time and truly action RPG, you would be able to dodge projectiles and I am pretty sure you couldn't dodge arrows by simply moving.

[atlantico]

What, you thought Bio wrote that their BG1 journal was "lousy"? No, they didn't write the piece; that was the CGW first look at BG2. I don't see how I gave you the wrong idea there.

 

Probably because we were discussing Bioware and you talked about some magazine no one knows of and then immediately went to another sentence and used the word 'they', which I naturally assumed was Bioware. Because the fact that some magazine had actually said that the journal of BG2 was an improvement, well that would be literally irrelevant to the discussion. 

 

My mistake was giving you too much credit.

 

What's unfair about describing a limitation as a cost of the thing that causes the limitation? Anyway, the point is that the journal approach in BG1 didn't work for me, for the reasons stated, and I'm glad they dropped it.

 

 

Yes, I kinda gather that it didn't work for you. What didn't work for me, was when you started shoving that opinion like it was fact.

 

You can support your opinion with more opinions from some game mag that claimed it was an improvement. No problem. Just don't treat that as fact, and that's great.

 

Giving a frankly incomprehensible justification that some offscreen journal bothered you because it wasn't like what your headcanon imagination claimed your character to be. Also fine, but for people who don't play headcanon, kinda irrelevant.

 

Whatever, don't push your personal opinions as facts or something that even makes sense to people who don't play BG1 using headcanon like you do.
 

And there we have the core difference. I don't need or want to read a journal to find out what I just played. All I want from a journal is for it to handle the stuff I had to write on a notepad before journals came along. It's like an automap for the plot.

 

 

The journal works exactly the same in BG2 in that manner, it tells you exactly what you just played. It just does it in a even more detached and boring way. It's a lazy version of the BG1 journal. 

[Auztin]

While it wasn't turn-based like BG or other D&D based games, on the other hand it certainly wasn't real time as DAI, Skyrim or Diablo. It is not because of the pace of the game the combat system sometimes felt wonky. It could be seen especially when playing as a melee in 3rd person mode and trying closing in on somebody running away. If it was truly real time, you could just hit him immediately as you ordered your attack. There are some sort of turns or cycles working behing the real time facade, it is more close to hybrid systems than truly real time ones. Also if it was truly real time and truly action RPG, you would be able to dodge projectiles and I am pretty sure you couldn't dodge arrows by simply moving.

It was a hybrid of both but it is advertised in the description of the game(can't remember where) it is said to be real time combat.

[Il Divo]

The journal works exactly the same in BG2 in that manner, it tells you exactly what you just played. It just does it in a even more detached and boring way. It's a lazy version of the BG1 journal. 

 

 

Writing everything in the first person doesn't prevent BG1's journal from being detached and boring. It's just that on top of those things, it can now also be character breaking, such as those playing the murderous psychopath, which Baldur's Gate emphasized.

 

I also wouldn't call it lazy since the journal quite often regurgitates the exact information npc's give you, but in the first person. That's no time at all. 

[atlantico]

Writing everything in the first person doesn't prevent BG1's journal from being detached and boring. It's just that on top of those things, it can now also be character breaking, such as those playing the murderous psychopath, which Baldur's Gate emphasized.

 

I also wouldn't call it lazy since the journal quite often regurgitates the exact information npc's give you, but in the first person. That's no time at all. 

 

I told you, I have to return some videotapes.

[Jeffry]

It was a hybrid of both but it is advertised in the description of the game(can't remember where) it is said to be real time combat.

 

Yeah, I think I remember that as well, something like "real time tactical combat with the ability to pause and issue commands". Well, "real time combat" after all sounds a bit better than "something that acts and looks like real time combat, but quite isn't"

[Il Divo]

I told you, I have to return some videotapes.

 

I can wait. 

[AlanC9]

Probably because we were discussing Bioware and you talked about some magazine no one knows of and then immediately went to another sentence and used the word 'they', which I naturally assumed was Bioware. Because the fact that some magazine had actually said that the journal of BG2 was an improvement, well that would be literally irrelevant to the discussion. 

Hmm. Yah, the "they" might have been ambiguous, yep. I thought it was clear from context, since it was obviously not something that Bio would ever say themselves. Still kinda sloppy, though; if there's one thing I should have learned from ME3, it's to never leave room for bad interpretations. But really, "never heard of"? I guess we can poll the thread, but anyone who was gaming when BG1 came out should remember CGW.

Your last sentence there makes a weird argument. Even if one thinks that a magazine review is irrelevant to the discussion of a feature's quality, surely a publisher's own discussion of the feature can't be any more relevant. You already posted the rant about why it wasn't relevant yourself, come to think of it. So how did your estimation of relevance lead you to think that I was making one irrelevant argument rather than another irrelevant argument?

Yes, I kinda gather that it didn't work for you. What didn't work for me, was when you started shoving that opinion like it was fact.
 
You can support your opinion with more opinions from some game mag that claimed it was an improvement. No problem. Just don't treat that as fact, and that's great.

 
Well, it's a fact that journals written the way you like were never seen as a great thing. It wasn't uncommon once -- Morrowind took that approach too, for instance -- but they largely died out a decade ago, in favor of the more neutral tone. If you want to say that everyone else has bad taste in this matter, go right ahead.

The journal works exactly the same in BG2 in that manner, it tells you exactly what you just played. It just does it in a even more detached and boring way. It's a lazy version of the BG1 journal.

Detached is what I want. All I'm looking for is the information. I suppose the BG2 journal could be trimmed down a bit for efficiency's sake, but it isn't all that bad. (Superior organization helps. ) As for"boring," I'm getting my entertainment from the game.

And of course I'll have to make a pro forma objection to "lazy," since refusing to spend effort on making a feature worse is hardly laziness. Though obviously the whole force of the objection is in the definition of "worse."

[AlanC9]

Also if it was truly real time and truly action RPG, you would be able to dodge projectiles and I am pretty sure you couldn't dodge arrows by simply moving.

Right. My understanding of the engine is that when, say, an attack takes place, there are two different events scheduled in the game, an animation event and the actual effect of the attack. The effect event is delayed until the animation finishes so you don't take damage before you see the attack that causes the damage. But since the attack has already been rolled what happens during the animation time doesn't matter, which is why arrows can track your PC around corners and so forth.

In low-memory conditions you can sometimes have absurd results as the engine forgets about certain events but not others. For instance, going through the motions of using a health poultice without actually having the poultice used.

[atlantico]

Well, it's a fact that journals written the way you like were never seen as a great thing. It wasn't uncommon once -- Morrowind took that approach too, for instance -- but they largely died out a decade ago, in favor of the more neutral tone. If you want to say that everyone else has bad taste in this matter, go right ahead.

 

I've got not problem with saying that the popular hackn'slash action adventure MMO inspired pseudo-RPGs are tasteless and vapid, yet they're pretty damn popular. 

There has never been a direct correlation with popularity and good taste. 

 

Detached is what I want. All I'm looking for is the information. I suppose the BG2 journal could be trimmed down a bit for efficiency's sake, but it isn't all that bad. (Superior organization helps. ) As for"boring," I'm getting my entertainment from the game.

 

 

I know you do, you have a very active headcanon by all accounts. There's nothing but good to be said about that and that you enjoyed BG2 better because you felt that game was better suited to your playing style, and I'm saying BG1 was better suited to mine. 

 

Surely, that's marks the coda for this particular argument.

[Realmzmaster]

While it wasn't turn-based like BG or other D&D based games, on the other hand it certainly wasn't real time as DAI, Skyrim or Diablo. It is not because of the pace of the game the combat system sometimes felt wonky. It could be seen especially when playing as a melee in 3rd person mode and trying closing in on somebody running away. If it was truly real time, you could just hit him immediately as you ordered your attack. There are some sort of turns or cycles working behing the real time facade, it is more close to hybrid systems than truly real time ones. Also if it was truly real time and truly action RPG, you would be able to dodge projectiles and I am pretty sure you couldn't dodge arrows by simply moving.

 

BG games are not turn based. BG was realtime with pause and play. Bioware has never made a turn based game. Temple of Elemental Evil or Pool of Radiance Myth Drannor are turn based games.

[Realmzmaster]

@AlanC9,

 

You brought back memories with your mention of CGW(Computer Gaming World). I remember aways rushing to read Scorpia's crpg reviews. CGW was one of the granddaddies of gaming magazines. Now I have to go and dig up my old copies!

[Wurm_king]

personally I blame EA and their stupid every game must have online multiplayer policy. look at all the great games that are released by companies, then EA takes over and insists on multiplayer (even if it does not fit) and look at what we get. I mean I have owned this game for 4 months now and I have never played the multiplayer, because I am not interested in multiplayer. I buy RPGs for the story and single player experience.

 

but I think it is more then that. EA takes over bioware after DAO and look what we get. a rushed game that is released like 3 months after the final DLC for DAO. and I mean rushed, or lazy take your pick. reuse of maps, and not even cleverly done, no re skinning it is the same 6 or 7 maps everywhere. over simplified battle system, menu system and character customization system that has potential but is overall inferior to DAO

 

in DAI it feels like they ran out of time half way through making a great game so they just cut and past parts of DA 2 into the game and then shipped. so we have one fully realized area and then a bunch of half way done area's. I think that only way they can fix this is with a lot of well done DLC. and I mean well done.

 

because right now I rate this game a 6 out of 10, all flash little substance. I rate DA 2 as a 4/10, no substance, and a little flash, all executed lazily. DA:O still at 9.0 or 9.5. nearly perfect in every category. open ended at both ends, beautifully done environments and menu's, great story, and a very good battle system. only thing holding it back are the bugs.

[Rizilliant]

Now, you are not even trying. You just cutting and pasting.

 

And no all the DLC for Origins was not awesome especially the expansion called Awakening. Anybody for some runecrafting and overpowered abilities?

Completely disagree.. The only dlc that wasnt "awesome" could be considered the party gifts and favors..They had a part, btu to me, it was basically cheating..  Every single bit of those dlcs added actual, meaningful content!

 

Drakspawn playthrough, witch hunt, lelianas song, the Stone Prisoner, Return to Ostogar, Wardens Keep, A Tale of Orzimmar, and Golems of Amgarrak... Which of thse were not great content, and awesome fun?

 

Awakenings was and "Expansion"... And still, was great (though not worth the $40 pricetag by a longshot)

[Jeffry]

but I think it is more then that. EA takes over bioware after DAO and look what we get. a rushed game that is released like 3 months after the final DLC for DAO. and I mean rushed, or lazy take your pick. reuse of maps, and not even cleverly done, no re skinning it is the same 6 or 7 maps everywhere. over simplified battle system, menu system and character customization system that has potential but is overall inferior to DAO

 

in DAI it feels like they ran out of time half way through making a great game so they just cut and past parts of DA 2 into the game and then shipped. so we have one fully realized area and then a bunch of half way done area's. I think that only way they can fix this is with a lot of well done DLC. and I mean well done.

 

because right now I rate this game a 6 out of 10, all flash little substance. I rate DA 2 as a 4/10, no substance, and a little flash, all executed lazily. DA:O still at 9.0 or 9.5. nearly perfect in every category. open ended at both ends, beautifully done environments and menu's, great story, and a very good battle system. only thing holding it back are the bugs.

 

EA also took over BioWare before releasing the first ME and few years later we got one of the best games ever - ME2. I don't know how BioWare were doing financially, but DAO had been in various stages of development for like 4 years already at the time of said acquisition, then add on top of that ME and at least early pre-production phase of SWTOR. Also their last game at that point (Jade Empire) sold very very poorly. I don't want to defend EA much, I don't particularly like them just as any other major publisher but where would BioWare be without EA's money? Would DAO have to be released earlier with more cut content? Or would they end up bankrupt and dissolved with their assets sold to other companies? Someone else would have bought them?

 

Say what you will about DA2, with the little time they had for developing the game, it is surprising the game is very well playable and didn't even had that many bugs at release. And still BW was able to improve upon some aspects of DAO.

[Sunbrow]

This button mashing nightmare is now a shooter game with nice scenery and music.  The character and NPC graphics are just sad for this day and age.  Party members have pathetic program ability.  Skill trees butchered.  Can't program mouse (have a naga for button mashing games).  A memory leak that shows it's ugly head every now and then (I built my rig and it functions just fine in other more graphically intense games). I see a mass effect 3 approach here with great intentions.  I do enjoy the bard songs and the feel of the war amongst the people.  This is kind of kit car with a volkswagen engine, its never gonna be a sports car.  The build up has its moments and the war table/diplomacy is a good thing (Rally people and get help like Mass Effect 3).  They over thought the story and stole the Rifts from Rift's MMO and Oblivion.  Should have just stuck with the mage/templar war that built up nicely in DA2 (Varric was the MAN!).  

 

But the worst part (other than my hand needing reconstructive surgery from clicking), is that all my preparations and diplomacy is for naught.....the final battle is not affected by anything you have done...it just happens.  Stick to playstations, it seems that is  your passion.

 

 sniff..... the days of DA Origins is over.  Long live House Cousland!

[Il Divo]

Completely disagree.. The only dlc that wasnt "awesome" could be considered the party gifts and favors..They had a part, btu to me, it was basically cheating..  Every single bit of those dlcs added actual, meaningful content!

 

Drakspawn playthrough, witch hunt, lelianas song, the Stone Prisoner, Return to Ostogar, Wardens Keep, A Tale of Orzimmar, and Golems of Amgarrak... Which of thse were not great content, and awesome fun?

 

Awakenings was and "Expansion"... And still, was great (though not worth the $40 pricetag by a longshot)

 

I'd say Darkspawn Chronicles, Leliana's Song, and Witch Hunt were about as bland as it gets. Darkspawn Chronicles especially since it was a combat simulator with Codex entries. 

 

Witch Hunt, which also released same day as Lair of the Shadowbroker, essentially was a cruddy version of the Liara expansion, designed more to capitalize on the "Reunion with a LI" than anything else. The reunion was confined to the last five minutes of the expansion, along with forgettable companions (imo).