480 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Still, I think that approach is misguided.

We saw a new emphasis on faster, action-based gameplay with KotOR, granted still with the DnD 3.5 rule set. Follow that up with Jade Empire two years later, a relatively straight forward action RPG. Time-skip 3 more years and you have Mass Effect 1, at which point Bioware announces it will be followed up with two more similar-esque games. Then wait another 3 years and you have DA:O and ME2.

The way you're phrasing it gives the impression that Bioware simultaneously developed in two different directions, when from a "products released" stand point, we saw a series of increasingly action focused games, with a single outlier released 6 years after KotOR. Actually, we can go back even farther to Neverwinter Nights and see they reduced the party down to two characters from BG's 6.

I can understand the desire to see party-based combat from a AAA developer and disappointment at Bioware's change in direction. I'm just not sure I'm following the angle on why Jade Empire was a fluke in terms of RPG design, given events before and after.

KOTOR has non-D&D elements, but it still played out like a 3D RPG title. It's not like it was Jedi Academy. You had unit placement, non-combat skills, various build options... it wasn't Baldur's Gate but it has more in common with DA:O than it does DA:I. NWN still was built on 3.5 mechanics, even if it didn't utilize the party strongly.

Mass Effect 1 came out on 2007, while DA:O came out in 2008. And DA:O came out before ME2, which did a MUCH more non-RPG approach with its design. I mean, ME1 had sci-fi lock picking and Prestige Classes, for Pete's sake. If it wasn't rooted in a FPS combat mechanic but had an auto attack feature and direct control over your squadmate's positions, it could have given DA:O a run for it's money for RPG-esque feel.

Until ME2 and DA2, there was a LOT of plausible deniability. Especially since Bioware themselves fanned these flames, using phrases like "spiritual successor to BG" for the DA series before it was released, and post-release doing this like disparaging JRPG design for its linearity, lack of complex mechanics and hampering of player agency.


Again, in hindsight, the writing was on the wall. Not to mention that even suggesting that this move to action gameplay was met with haughty derision such as "don't be paranoid, Bioware isn't making World of Warcraft - you doomsday naysayers are the worst fans for Bioware and need to just leave" by the same Bioware defenders who, today, say "can't you see Bioware has moved on? Get with the times or just leave."

It's kind of funny to think about that transition, in retrospect.

[Il Divo]

KOTOR has non-D&D elements, but it still played out like a 3D RPG title. It's not like it was Jedi Academy. You had unit placement, non-combat skills, various build options... it wasn't Baldur's Gate but it has more in common with DA:O than it does DA:I. 

 

 

Really? Even without an isometric camera and less emphasis on party builds? I can get through the game just fine using an all Jedi party, with someone set to auto-heals. I don't recall even being able to order my party around into different positions, but it's been a while since I played on PC. It at least moves us down in a different direction. 

 

Keep in mind my argument was not whether KotOR itself leaned towards either DA:O or DAI, but whether that and NwN began to indicate an increasing shift towards DA:I. Remove DA:O as an outlier and there's really no Bioware game past Baldur's Gate that indicated they were constructing a traditional RPG. It's all small party size, PC focused, and increasingly action based gameplay. 

 

NWN still was built on 3.5 mechanics, even if it didn't utilize the party strongly

 

 

I'd say that's putting it mildly. Dropping from a  party of 6 to a party of 2 (3 if you count the expansions) is a pretty big damper on "party-based tactics", which was one of your distinctions in comparing traditional RPGs to DA:I. 

 

As above, it's constructed as a spectrum. My point is not "NwN" is an action game, but observing:

 

NwN-->KotOR-->Jade Empire-->ME1-->DA:O/ME2 almost concurrently...by the time you reach the Jade Empire/ME1 point, my faith in their willingness to make party-based RPGs would have been shaken.  

 

Mass Effect 1 came out on 2007, while DA:O came out in 2008. And DA:O came out before ME2, which did a MUCH more non-RPG approach with its design. I mean, ME1 had sci-fi lock picking and Prestige Classes, for Pete's sake. If it wasn't rooted in a FPS combat mechanic but had an auto attack feature and direct control over your squadmate's positions, it could have given DA:O a run for it's money for RPG-esque feel.

 

 

DA:O came out in late 2009, ME2 came out in early 2010, about a 4 month separation.

 

I also wouldn't consider Mass Effect to be a great example of RPG gameplay. In terms of gameplay, it's basically how Gears of War plays out, just with some powers thrown on top. 

 

Actually, I thought the reason Mass Effect's gameplay was so horrible was that Bioware hamstrung themselves with some bad attempts at RPG mechanics that didn't mesh well with the experience. Again, regarding the whole thing as a spectrum, KotOR had 7-8 different non-combat skills attached, Mass Effect had lock-picking and persuade. And given the ME1 inventory....the less lock-picking done, the better. 

 

Until ME2 and DA2, there was a LOT of plausible deniability. Especially since Bioware themselves fanned these flames, using phrases like "spiritual successor to BG" for the DA series before it was released, and post-release doing this like disparaging JRPG design for its linearity, lack of complex mechanics and hampering of player agency. 

 

 

Yeah, I think the spiritual successor phrase has rightfully caused Bioware some flack, though I still think viewing ME2 as the turning point is flawed. 

[SofaJockey]

... I wish there was an RPG with no random encounters. ...

 

Interestingly, random encounters, were as I understood it, a feature of classic Dungeons & Dragons,

so it terms of RPG activity, it seems very authentic, even though I appreciate that you do not prefer it.

[Monica21]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "less complex" games. The idea that more complexity is a better thing is an opinion. At the end of the day the average age of a gamer is in the mid to late 30s (heh, I'm not QUITE there yet.) These people have stressful jobs, complex relationships, and very real problems, they also no longer have the time or the luxuries people had in their youth. When these people want to sit down and play a game, their main goal is to be entertained. They're not looking for complexity, they've got plenty to deal with as it is, they're just something they can pick up and sink some time into. It's why romance and speculative-fiction are the highest selling book genres, and it's why games like Skyrim and Diablo sells buckets.

 

I know this was yesterday, but going to comment anyway.

 

I'm older than the average gamer and I do want complexity. I also have a full-time job at which I usually work late and the occasional Saturday. I get to manage people at that full-time job. I have a 40-minute commute. I rarely get home before 7pm, but when I do, I still want a game that makes me think. I don't want mindless button mashing or I'd be playing something else. RPGs are my game of choice because I expect complexity. I don't want to a game company to start making decisions that sound like, "Oh, she doesn't have time or energy for thoughtful games and choices because she has a job." When I come home I don't fire up the game and think, "Ugh, this is work." I think that work is work. Gaming and playing RPGs is fun. Yes, it took me almost two months to finish my first playthrough, but I didn't mind because I was enjoying myself, even if there are things I wish had been done differently. Complexity, done right, is entertaining.

 

And I also think you're misrepresenting an entire generation. Most people in my generation miss the complexity. We miss the Planescape: Torments of the world and want to see more RPGs like it. I'd love nothing more than a return to a game like that, but instead I have to hear about how well Skyrim sold and just sigh, because that's not even remotely the kind of RPG I want to play. System Shock 2 is more of an RPG than Skyrim. My brother is seven years older than me and is not buying Inquisition specifically because he doesn't like the open world style of games.

 

Complexity is not something unwanted, nor will an RPG gamer (especially those in my generation who cut their teeth on Baldur's Gate) avoid complexity just because we have jobs and not as much free time.

[ThreeF]

Interestingly, random encounters, were as I understood it, a feature of classic Dungeons & Dragons,

so it terms of RPG activity, it seems very authentic, even though I appreciate that you do not prefer it.

I don't really like the classic DnD for many reasons, it seems to me as an appealing idea for a table top game, but not on pc, not to me anyways. (NWN still make me shiver when I think of its combat)

 

I'm not against combat when it is part of a plot, but running around with a random bear attacking you for a nth time is something I can live without. I rather earn xp and get gears in different way.

[SofaJockey]

I don't really like the classic DnD for many reasons, it seems to me as an appealing idea for a table top game, but not on pc, not to me anyways. (NWN still make me shiver when I think of its combat)

 

I'm not against combat when it is part of a plot, but running around with a random bear attacking you for a nth time is something I can live without. I rather earn xp and get gears in different way.

 

It would work for me if by killing the random bear, 

you slowly erode the bear population,

which is what I understand DAI does?

[Fast Jimmy]

Interestingly, random encounters, were as I understood it, a feature of classic Dungeons & Dragons,
so it terms of RPG activity, it seems very authentic, even though I appreciate that you do not prefer it.

I completely disagree. With a PnP game, nearly every encounter is planned. Sure, there may be instances where you roll a random chance of encountering bandits on the road or a surprise goblin attack when you camp, but these encounters are outliers, not the primary source of combat. Most combat is in designed and measurable instances, where enemies don't just materialize after taking X number of steps.

[Fast Jimmy]

It would work for me if by killing the random bear,
you slowly erode the bear population,
which is what I understand DAI does?

This was a proposed, but scrapped feature, I believe. The reactive ecosystem did not make it into the final game (just like some other interesting features).

[ThreeF]

It would work for me if by killing the random bear, 

you slowly erode the bear population,

which is what I understand DAI does?

I haven't noticed it. 

 

It really has to do with how you build your story though, if you have players constantly running through wildness it would feel empty (I suppose there is that), but even so it would be better if it wasn't so repetitive and well....pointless. I don't mind the random encounters in ES games, though because you can level up by other means and the game as a whole has a different purpose there. 

 

I think in DAI my favorite area encounter wise is Fallow Mire, the encounters there are still repetitive but a bit less pointless.

[IanPolaris]

Self-selection bias cannot be resolved by increasing the sample size.  The sample could be half the relevant population and self-selection bias would still skew things. Bottom line, the number voters in these player's choice polls is sufficient to create a statistically significant sample.

 

No they don't.  Unless the player's choice can show that they interviered everyone (ha! ha!), it's not a statistically valid sample no matter how large.  It's trash if you are trying to draw conclusions based on the larger sample space based on it.

[SofaJockey]

This was a proposed, but scrapped feature, I believe. The reactive ecosystem did not make it into the final game (just like some other interesting features).

 

er, but Mike Laidlaw mentioned it in the July demo, only a short time before launch.

How did that disappear?

The game was feature locked at that point I thought...?

 

The Hinterlands certainly feels safer as I wander through it later... 

[ThreeF]

The Hinterlands certainly feels safer as I wander through it later... 

Mostly because the 2 aggressive factions are no more (which was a nice touch)

[In Exile]

er, but Mike Laidlaw mentioned it in the July demo, only a short time before launch.
How did that disappear?
The game was feature locked at that point I thought...?

The Hinterlands certainly feels safer as I wander through it later...

DAI wasn't feature locked until like 3-4 weeks before release - basically right at the strictest possible deadline that would allow them to ship to retailers. Remember it was delayed a month from October because of how much they were struggling to get it to work.

[Realmzmaster]

Interestingly, random encounters, were as I understood it, a feature of classic Dungeons & Dragons,

so it terms of RPG activity, it seems very authentic, even though I appreciate that you do not prefer it.

 

Random encounters were features of computer role playing games based on D n D.  In an actual D n D tabletop session the DM planned most of the encounters.  Occasionally, the DM would roll a random encounter if the party was on the road, walking through a forest or camping. If the DM told the party that an area was unsafe or dangerous to camp in then a random encounter was almost guaranteed, but it was up to the DM

 

The early cRPGs were basically dungeon crawlers so most of the encounters were random because it was simpler to do it that way though some treasures could always be found at the same location like quest items.. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Really? Even without an isometric camera and less emphasis on party builds? I can get through the game just fine using an all Jedi party, with someone set to auto-heals. I don't recall even being able to order my party around into different positions, but it's been a while since I played on PC. It at least moves us down in a different direction. 

 

Keep in mind my argument was not whether KotOR itself leaned towards either DA:O or DAI, but whether that and NwN began to indicate an increasing shift towards DA:I. Remove DA:O as an outlier and there's really no Bioware game past Baldur's Gate that indicated they were constructing a traditional RPG. It's all small party size, PC focused, and increasingly action based gameplay. 

 

 

I'd say that's putting it mildly. Dropping from a  party of 6 to a party of 2 (3 if you count the expansions) is a pretty big damper on "party-based tactics", which was one of your distinctions in comparing traditional RPGs to DA:I. 

 

As above, it's constructed as a spectrum. My point is not "NwN" is an action game, but observing:

 

NwN-->KotOR-->Jade Empire-->ME1-->DA:O/ME2 almost concurrently...by the time you reach the Jade Empire/ME1 point, my faith in their willingness to make party-based RPGs would have been shaken.  

 

And again, I'm not arguing with you that Bioware has been making this move. It's just that 1)) they said they WEREN'T making that move with DA:I, talking about how you can play the game entirely in tactical mode with no issues, so Bioware was making a course correction of the above stated trends and 2)that this direction, while in retrospect was obviously linear, could have been misinterpreted along the way. Not that it wasn't linear, just that fans can't be blamed for... you know, believing Bioware when they said they weren't doing what they were doing.

 

 

DA:O came out in late 2009, ME2 came out in early 2010, about a 4 month separation.

 

I also wouldn't consider Mass Effect to be a great example of RPG gameplay. In terms of gameplay, it's basically how Gears of War plays out, just with some powers thrown on top. 

 

Actually, I thought the reason Mass Effect's gameplay was so horrible was that Bioware hamstrung themselves with some bad attempts at RPG mechanics that didn't mesh well with the experience. Again, regarding the whole thing as a spectrum, KotOR had 7-8 different non-combat skills attached, Mass Effect had lock-picking and persuade. And given the ME1 inventory....the less lock-picking done, the better.  

 

I'm not talking about execution, merely mechanics. If ME1 had been isometric with auto-attack guns and full party control, it would have rivaled DA:O in terms of RPG-ness. Again, just in terms of mechanics that you could use. After all, DA:O's non-combat skills I'd say were less well implemented than KOTOR's, given how infrequently and sporadically they were used.

 

But this entire line of discussion has gotten us way off course of the thrust of what I was saying, which is outlined in my above response - fans can't be blamed for believing the "we're making a tactical RPG" hype, regardless of any prior game trends. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I think the spiritual successor phrase has rightfully caused Bioware some flack, though I still think viewing ME2 as the turning point is flawed.

 

It was certainly a turning point for the ME series. It went from being a rough around the edges FPS RPG into a more polished FPS with RPG mechanics. The distinction may be a small one, but I'd say that's when the series stopped being a FPS RPG and just became a FPS. 

 

And the "spiritual successor" phrase was totally fine... I feel like DA:O WAS a spiritual successor to BG. A 3D, non-D&D, more cinematic BG. The non-D&D thing rubbed people the wrong way, for sure, with things like cooldowns and auto-heal. But the ability to control your party directly, while giving commands, moving units, using abilities and having it all actually matter because the enemies didn't rain from the sky or run faster than The Flash across the battlefield was unqiue and very much in the spirit of what made BG so great of a system. 

Coupled with the Origins themselves, which offered branching content and a way to acquaint yourself with the new world and suddenly you've got a game that has a gripping setting, a story that pulls the player along and a combat system that, while could use tweaking, offers a great experience and which is truly unique in the entire marketplace.

 

 

That's why I don't mind the spiritual successor comment... because it was true. The thing that irks me is that the comment does not apply to any of the sequels.

[Realmzmaster]

er, but Mike Laidlaw mentioned it in the July demo, only a short time before launch.

How did that disappear?

The game was feature locked at that point I thought...?

 

The Hinterlands certainly feels safer as I wander through it later... 

 

That is because the Inquisitor eliminated two aggressive groups. Why even the bears come up and thank the Inquisitor for that before attempting to rip his/her head off.   

[Fast Jimmy]

That is because the Inquisitor eliminated two aggressive groups. Why even the bears come up and thank the Inquisitor for that before attempting to rip his/her head off.   

 

Bears love giving happy hugs!

[Fast Jimmy]

er, but Mike Laidlaw mentioned it in the July demo, only a short time before launch.

How did that disappear?

The game was feature locked at that point I thought...?

 

The Hinterlands certainly feels safer as I wander through it later... 

As InExile said, the game was not feature locked until the last second. This is why you are seeing so many people say "we were lied to" because... well, in essence they were.

 

Having multiple Keeps that could be managed in different ways was also in a pre-release video. As well as the Crestwood decision between the Keep and the Village. As well as the ability to knock down supporting structures if an enemy was on a perched viewpoint. As well as different characters having different leveled up non-combat skills (like Cassandra being able to Smash the gate of the Keep the party was capturing because her skill was very high leveled and, apparently, the Inquisitor had engaged in quests to weaken the Keep by poisoning the well or some such, another feature we aren't given). As well as the ability to have the game stay in zoomed out tactical mode while playing without moving the game forward in slow motion.

 

 

Lots of things were shown about the game that didn't make it. The game clearly needed another six months, maybe a year, to meet the vision the team wanted. Given they had already extended release three times and were 4.5 years from their last title, I know why they didn't but still... the game's omissions are its biggest faults.

[In Exile]

As InExile said, the game was not feature locked until the last second. This is why you are seeing so many people say "we were lied to" because... well, in essence they were.

Having multiple Keeps that could be managed in different ways was also in a pre-release video. As well as the Crestwood decision between the Keep and the Village. As well as the ability to knock down supporting structures if an enemy was on a perched viewpoint. As well as different characters having different leveled up non-combat skills (like Cassandra being able to Smash the gate of the Keep the party was capturing because her skill was very high leveled and, apparently, the Inquisitor had engaged in quests to weaken the Keep by poisoning the well or some such, another feature we aren't given). As well as the ability to have the game stay in zoomed out tactical mode while playing without moving the game forward in slow motion.


Lots of things were shown about the game that didn't make it. The game clearly needed another six months, maybe a year, to meet the vision the team wanted. Given they had already extended release three times and were 4.5 years from their last title, I know why they didn't but still... the game's omissions are its biggest faults.

I think Bioware did an incredible job for how much work they had in terms of making FB3 a functional engine for an RPG and releasing it on hardware so comically outdated that it's basically stone age at this point.

Edit:

Crestowood I wouldn't put any stock in. That was a vertical slice like the Citadel section in ME1 and the Therum. From the original previews of ME1 you can see Bioware cut all of the gameplay to what we got at release. Remember ME1 had a tactical camera.

[AlanC9]

I
If it were more of an action game, to the point it really worked, it'd basically be Dragon's Dogma's system. That's where it would start. But I don't want that in DA, because you lose all the party tactics elements I absolutely love about DA:O and KoTOR. They basically undermined that in DA2 and scrapped it in DA:I,

I don't follow your point about DA2. How was it undermined?

[AlanC9]

Crestowood I wouldn't put any stock in. That was a vertical slice like the Citadel section in ME1 and the Therum. From the original previews of ME1 you can see Bioware cut all of the gameplay to what we got at release. Remember ME1 had a tactical camera.

Anyone remember if ME1 got a lot of grief for these cuts? Since there wasn't a PC version for a while I wasn't paying much attention to it at launch.

[Elhanan]

As InExile said, the game was not feature locked until the last second. This is why you are seeing so many people say "we were lied to" because... well, in essence they were.
 
Having multiple Keeps that could be managed in different ways was also in a pre-release video. As well as the Crestwood decision between the Keep and the Village. As well as the ability to knock down supporting structures if an enemy was on a perched viewpoint. As well as different characters having different leveled up non-combat skills (like Cassandra being able to Smash the gate of the Keep the party was capturing because her skill was very high leveled and, apparently, the Inquisitor had engaged in quests to weaken the Keep by poisoning the well or some such, another feature we aren't given). As well as the ability to have the game stay in zoomed out tactical mode while playing without moving the game forward in slow motion.
 
 
Lots of things were shown about the game that didn't make it. The game clearly needed another six months, maybe a year, to meet the vision the team wanted. Given they had already extended release three times and were 4.5 years from their last title, I know why they didn't but still... the game's omissions are its biggest faults.

Not certain what was meant by varied Keep Mgt, but there is certainly the KD effect on bridges and structures within the Keeps; used this tactic when I recognized them from the vids. And we get to clean the well now; they poisoned it themselves.

[Realmzmaster]

As InExile said, the game was not feature locked until the last second. This is why you are seeing so many people say "we were lied to" because... well, in essence they were.

 

Having multiple Keeps that could be managed in different ways was also in a pre-release video. As well as the Crestwood decision between the Keep and the Village. As well as the ability to knock down supporting structures if an enemy was on a perched viewpoint. As well as different characters having different leveled up non-combat skills (like Cassandra being able to Smash the gate of the Keep the party was capturing because her skill was very high leveled and, apparently, the Inquisitor had engaged in quests to weaken the Keep by poisoning the well or some such, another feature we aren't given). As well as the ability to have the game stay in zoomed out tactical mode while playing without moving the game forward in slow motion.

 

 

Lots of things were shown about the game that didn't make it. The game clearly needed another six months, maybe a year, to meet the vision the team wanted. Given they had already extended release three times and were 4.5 years from their last title, I know why they didn't but still... the game's omissions are its biggest faults.

 

The assumption is that given another six months or a year that stuff would make it into the game. Bioware still may not have been able to make it work. 

I can see Mike  Laidlaw taling to his boss and his boss's boss. 

 

Mike: We need a little more time to get everything to work as we envision.

Boss: How much time?

Mike: Six months, maybe a year.

Boss: Are you sure you will be able to do it?

Mike: Maybe? I have a good feeling about it. We have a fantastic team that can get it done.

Boss: You know time is money. We gave you an extra year and have delayed the release. How much more money are we talking over budget?

Mike: A few million more.

Boss: I will take to my boss about it.

 

Boss talking to the boss's boss.

 

Boss: Mike and his team need more time to get all the features in the game.

Boss's boss: Will those features guarantee more sales?

Boss: Maybe?

Boss's Boss: We do not run a business on Maybe?. Get it ready to go gold.

 

I never felt lied to about any of the features. Maybe because I worked in the field and know what can happen. 

[Ashen Nedra]

I know this was yesterday, but going to comment anyway.

 

I'm older than the average gamer and I do want complexity. I also have a full-time job at which I usually work late and the occasional Saturday. I get to manage people at that full-time job. I have a 40-minute commute. I rarely get home before 7pm, but when I do, I still want a game that makes me think. I don't want mindless button mashing or I'd be playing something else. RPGs are my game of choice because I expect complexity. I don't want to a game company to start making decisions that sound like, "Oh, she doesn't have time or energy for thoughtful games and choices because she has a job." When I come home I don't fire up the game and think, "Ugh, this is work." I think that work is work. Gaming and playing RPGs is fun. Yes, it took me almost two months to finish my first playthrough, but I didn't mind because I was enjoying myself, even if there are things I wish had been done differently. Complexity, done right, is entertaining.

 

And I also think you're misrepresenting an entire generation. Most people in my generation miss the complexity. We miss the Planescape: Torments of the world and want to see more RPGs like it. I'd love nothing more than a return to a game like that, but instead I have to hear about how well Skyrim sold and just sigh, because that's not even remotely the kind of RPG I want to play. System Shock 2 is more of an RPG than Skyrim. My brother is seven years older than me and is not buying Inquisition specifically because he doesn't like the open world style of games.

 

Complexity is not something unwanted, nor will an RPG gamer (especially those in my generation who cut their teeth on Baldur's Gate) avoid complexity just because we have jobs and not as much free time.

 

Oh yes, we do. In RPGs, and in games in general.

 

If I want to smash or mash something, I go to a boxing club or play tennis. To shoot something, to ball-trap.

 

On the other hand, I haven't yet found any sword and sorcery or neuromancy, or talking aliens in real life, so...............complex video games are still my favorite hobby/passion and best way to escape real world problems.

 

EA should forget about its sports simulations company culture when managing its new business units.

[Il Divo]

Anyone remember if ME1 got a lot of grief for these cuts? Since there wasn't a PC version for a while I wasn't paying much attention to it at launch.

 

Don't forget the interrupt system. That was a pretty huge highlight which was scrapped until ME2.