480 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

 Really? I thought DA2 was a flop compared to DAO

 

They spent more money on DA:O though.  I think even though the game sold fewer copies it was profitable based on the much shorter development cycle.

[AlanC9]

<sigh>
Okay, you win. Everyone who didn't expect the DA series to move to an ARPG model was dumb.

Hey, I'm still not granting the premise that DAI is an ARPG in the first place. We could talk about that instead.

[Sidney]

DAO was what, 5 years or more. DA2 was 18 months? Big difference in required ROI.

DA2 is really quite an achievement when you consider the fundamental changes they made to skill progression, voiced protagonist, combat and so forth. It would be one thing if they pulled off an Awakenings style expansion as sequel where not much changed but to not only build a new game but a lot of underlying changes is an impressive effort no matter how you feel about the underlying changes they made. I still feel bad that game didn't get the attention/time it deserves because I like so much about it.

[Sidney]

Hey, I'm still not granting the premise that DAI is an ARPG in the first place. We could talk about that instead.

I still want Nyone claiming action RPG to tell me how this is an action RPG. What is the criteria for that.

action games: assassins creed, birderlands, Arkham asylum
Tactical games: XCOM, well, ok that list is awfully short these days,

Combat in DAI is more closely related to which one? Hmmmm, select character, select target, things happen. The is no button mashing in the sense that you have in AC or AA, yes you hold the attack button down but the game would work the same ways it was still a toggle, AA and AC wouldn't. If the only criteria for Action is that the animations are good then God help us because it means tactical = visually bland.

[DragonKingReborn]

Hey, I'm still not granting the premise that DAI is an ARPG in the first place. We could talk about that instead.

As a hypothetical, would you feel the same if you only had control of the Inquisitor? Not choosing to run solo, but the game was identical to what it is now, but with no companions?

[Raoni Luna]

DAO was not just a game, was the start of a franchise that lasted A LOT. There is no way to compare to the following games. There were so much to build...

All this comparison makes no sense at all. Different games, different times, different purposes, all different.

We would never be able to make a good comparison. But RAW facts, DAI sold more and will probably be more profitable. Does this mean anything at all? No.

 

However we have interviews saying that Skyrim changed everything and that they would look agressively into Skyrim because of sales. Each person will judge if it is good or bad, but it is a fact. So it is their choice to follow this path, and it is our choice to follow them or not. So many wonderful RPGs out there.

 

People always get what they want: If you want to enjoy the game, you will, if you want to complain, you will, if you want another game you will find it. (I found great RPGs even before DAI was released, in case I hated it, turn out I'm playing it since it was released). Also Bioware will get what they want, if it is developing Thedas, make money or please the fans, I'm sure they will achieve.

[AlanC9]

As a hypothetical, would you feel the same if you only had control of the Inquisitor? Not choosing to run solo, but the game was identical to what it is now, but with no companions?

No, I wouldn't. NWN1 wasn't an ARPG either.

[wolfhowwl]

DAO was what, 5 years or more. DA2 was 18 months? Big difference in required ROI.

DA2 is really quite an achievement when you consider the fundamental changes they made to skill progression, voiced protagonist, combat and so forth. It would be one thing if they pulled off an Awakenings style expansion as sequel where not much changed but to not only build a new game but a lot of underlying changes is an impressive effort no matter how you feel about the underlying changes they made. I still feel bad that game didn't get the attention/time it deserves because I like so much about it.

 

What exactly took so long with DA:O anyways?

 

Did they pull a SquareEnix and announce it but then spend years working on other projects instead?

[bluebullets]

People always get what they want: If you want to enjoy the game, you will, if you want to complain, you will, if you want another game you will find it.

No. I wanted to like da:i.. I even liked the abomination da2. but da:i is simply unlikable. it is a poorly implemented skyrim/wow.

[Aaleel]

What exactly took so long with DA:O anyways?

 

Did they pull a SquareEnix and announce it but then spend years working on other projects instead?

 

They had to build the engine for it.  It also started as a PC game that they ported to consoles during the development.

[Giantdeathrobot]

In my books, ARPG has nothing to do with the combat system and everything to do with the story/combat ratio within the game. If the main draw of your game is its story, choices, customisation, characters, setting, it's an RPG, if your main draw is the stats, combat system and loot, it's an ARPG.

 

So DA:I is an RPG. Witcher 2 is an RPG, even if it has almost completely twitch combat. Baldur's Gate 2 is obviously an RPG. Meanwhile, Diablo, Torchlight and Path of Exile are ARPG because while they have a story, it is not the main draw of the game and you do not get meaningful dialog, characters and choices at all. You're just here to kill monsters, collect loot and build your stats.

 

Hell I think even Skyrim is not an ARPG. The story and setting is low-key but it is still a big draw of the game. 

 

I also abhor this practice that some people have to call games they don't like ARPG as if it was pejorative. It's just stating the good old ''It's not a REAL RPG'' nonsense in a backhanded way.

[Sidney]

In my books, ARPG has nothing to do with the combat system and everything to do with the story/combat ratio within the game. If the main draw of your game is its story, choices, customisation, characters, setting, it's an RPG, if your main draw is the stats, combat system and loot, it's an ARPG.
 
So DA:I is an RPG. Witcher 2 is an RPG, even if it has almost completely twitch combat. Baldur's Gate 2 is obviously an RPG. Meanwhile, Diablo, Torchlight and Path of Exile are ARPG because while they have a story, it is not the main draw of the game and you do not get meaningful dialog, characters and choices at all. You're just here to kill monsters, collect loot and build your stats.
 
Hell I think even Skyrim is not an ARPG. The story and setting is low-key but it is still a big draw of the game. 
 
I also abhor this practice that some people have to call games they don't like ARPG as if it was pejorative. It's just stating the good old ''It's not a REAL RPG'' nonsense in a backhanded way.

Story is a big draw of Skyrim, sorry I'm laughing at the thought. What story was there? I play the TES games but truthfully I can't recall the story of really any of the games. Heck, 90% of the time I don't even know the name of my character and I'd guess I often forget what race he is. Borderlands which is basically the same shoot/stab and loot game as Skyrim has a more engaging story line.

[Sidney]

They had to build the engine for it.  It also started as a PC game that they ported to consoles during the development.

Wasn't this a game that was in development so long they changed engines?

[In Exile]

DAO was what, 5 years or more. DA2 was 18 months? Big difference in required ROI.

DA2 is really quite an achievement when you consider the fundamental changes they made to skill progression, voiced protagonist, combat and so forth. It would be one thing if they pulled off an Awakenings style expansion as sequel where not much changed but to not only build a new game but a lot of underlying changes is an impressive effort no matter how you feel about the underlying changes they made. I still feel bad that game didn't get the attention/time it deserves because I like so much about it.

 

In a lot of ways it's similar to DA:I. Bioware essentially turned an FPS engine into a relatively functional RPG engine, released on hardware so outdated some modern tables are actually superior in part (e.g. memory) and generally created a whole new UI, combat system, etc. from scratch. They clearly imported a lot of their old animation and rigs etc. from both the UE engine they used in ME and the DA engine (can't remember the name for it from DA2) but even that took work.

 

Bioware's done a great job elbow-gluing stuff for DA for a while now. 

[In Exile]

What exactly took so long with DA:O anyways?

 

Did they pull a SquareEnix and announce it but then spend years working on other projects instead?

 

They kept changing it. At one point it was a LAN based MP game. Then it was all going to be done in a variant of the Aurora engine. I think it still sort of was with what we ended up but anyway. Then the Origins were going to play a bigger role - we were going to have a personal nemesis (Howe but a much larger role - you can see the precursors with e.g. Tamlen). It had lots and lots of changes. That's why for example the Loghain plot makes no sense - it went through a crazy number of revisions. There were also going to be 4 playable races (the Qunari, who we thought were lizard people at one point). 

[Mr Walker]

Good on 'em.  They deserve it.  It's not without some little nitpicky flaws, but overall, definitely worth the money.

[keyip]

They kept changing it. At one point it was a LAN based MP game. Then it was all going to be done in a variant of the Aurora engine. I think it still sort of was with what we ended up but anyway. Then the Origins were going to play a bigger role - we were going to have a personal nemesis (Howe but a much larger role - you can see the precursors with e.g. Tamlen). It had lots and lots of changes. That's why for example the Loghain plot makes no sense - it went through a crazy number of revisions. There were also going to be 4 playable races (the Qunari, who we thought were lizard people at one point). 

 

FROM IGN IN 2004:

 

Although set against a traditional fantasy backdrop, BioWare is hoping to do something a little different with Dragon Age, and the world won't be inhabited by Dwarves, Elves and Halflings -- although it will be filled with Dwarf-like, Elf-like and Halfling-like races. While this may sound like a cop-out, Ray explained that BioWare wanted to try something a little different, but still wanted it to be familiar to fantasy RPG players. Although nothing is finalized at this point, Dragon Age will feature archetypal races and classes (you know, fighters, clerics, mages and the like),

 

Like most RPGs, in the beginning you'll create a party of characters and tailor them to your desire. You'll also be able to hire henchmen during the game, and BioWare promises you'll run into some characters with a lot of personality, like Minsc from Baldur's Gate. 

 

Although they weren't saying much about the multiplayer side of the game today, Ray did tell us to expect all the level of community and multiplayer support that we saw with Neverwinter Nights. You can expect a separate multiplayer campaign with a similar story, but no cutscenes to slow down the action. They did say that they were coming up with some other "creative ideas" to keep the multiplayer campaign flowing and to allow the story to play out, but they weren't giving details at this point.

 

The demo we saw today was the labor of 18 months of production, but it's still a long way from being done. 

 

 

http://au.ign.com/ar...agon-age?page=2

 

FROM 1UP IN 2006:

 

- Even though Dragon Age isn't a D&D game, per se, BioWare is sticking close to those roots with the class and rules systems.

- The game uses a "modified" version of the Mass Effect conversation system we're all so keen on.

 

http://elliotkane.pr...gon-age-origins

[Sidney]

Well that certainly changed from a lot of MO and community to...none. No to the the -like stuff instead it was just the usually...minus halflings.

Can you imagine the cries of how Bioware lied to us today if they said those things and then released Origins?

[Uccio]

I still want Nyone claiming action RPG to tell me how this is an action RPG. What is the criteria for that.

action games: assassins creed, birderlands, Arkham asylum
Tactical games: XCOM, well, ok that list is awfully short these days,

Combat in DAI is more closely related to which one? Hmmmm, select character, select target, things happen. The is no button mashing in the sense that you have in AC or AA, yes you hold the attack button down but the game would work the same ways it was still a toggle, AA and AC wouldn't. If the only criteria for Action is that the animations are good then God help us because it means tactical = visually bland.

 

What do you mean? I have to beat my mouse like a dead horse to get pc to fight anyone.

[cronshaw]

FROM IGN IN 2004:

 

Although set against a traditional fantasy backdrop, BioWare is hoping to do something a little different with Dragon Age, and the world won't be inhabited by Dwarves, Elves and Halflings -- although it will be filled with Dwarf-like, Elf-like and Halfling-like races. While this may sound like a cop-out, Ray explained that BioWare wanted to try something a little different, but still wanted it to be familiar to fantasy RPG players. Although nothing is finalized at this point, Dragon Age will feature archetypal races and classes (you know, fighters, clerics, mages and the like),

 

Like most RPGs, in the beginning you'll create a party of characters and tailor them to your desire. You'll also be able to hire henchmen during the game, and BioWare promises you'll run into some characters with a lot of personality, like Minsc from Baldur's Gate. 

 

Although they weren't saying much about the multiplayer side of the game today, Ray did tell us to expect all the level of community and multiplayer support that we saw with Neverwinter Nights. You can expect a separate multiplayer campaign with a similar story, but no cutscenes to slow down the action. They did say that they were coming up with some other "creative ideas" to keep the multiplayer campaign flowing and to allow the story to play out, but they weren't giving details at this point.

 

The demo we saw today was the labor of 18 months of production, but it's still a long way from being done. 

 

 

http://au.ign.com/ar...agon-age?page=2

 

FROM 1UP IN 2006:

 

- Even though Dragon Age isn't a D&D game, per se, BioWare is sticking close to those roots with the class and rules systems.

- The game uses a "modified" version of the Mass Effect conversation system we're all so keen on.

 

http://elliotkane.pr...gon-age-origins

Let's sue BioWare for false advertisement

for Origins!

[KaiserShep]

 

Look at that bad mofo. It'd make the Warden crap his/her breeches.

 

[ThreeF]

He sort of looks as if he crapped his.

[Blade_RJ]

I don't want be a downer or one of those guys, but while liking some aspect of DAI, obviously it has the biggest launch, the game is on 5 plataforms !!! 2 old gen, 2 next gen and pc, previous games were only in 3 plataforms

[KaiserShep]

He sort of looks as if he crapped his.

Yeah, badassfully.

[Fast Jimmy]

Hey, I'm still not granting the premise that DAI is an ARPG in the first place. We could talk about that instead.

The mechanics involve the player aiming instead of the character - a melee character like the dual wielding rogue can swipe at an enemy and, because the player's own aim, the character can miss at thin air. The mechanics also involve the timing and reaction skills of the player over the character. You can build a character as a master dodger and still fail due to the player's own inability to time the dodge (or vice versa).

Those are gameplay elements that determine the quality of the action through the skill of the player rather than the skill of the character. Those are, by definition, action elements. In Skyrim, a master archer can miss a target at 10 feet miserably because the player aimed at the ground, or can have a player make a shot far enough away outside of any enemy's line of sight to kill them despite not having any skill in archery.

So if we agree there are action elements in DA:I, then it's a matter of taste to say how many action elements must exist to call it an ARPG. For me, it is any. Any action elements, any mechanics which have the player's reaction time, aim, etc. make it an ARPG. I don't know how you can have any other definition that isn't arbitrary in nature.