480 réponses à ce sujet

[cronshaw]

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.

Classifying video games is a colossal waste of time

[Lebanese Dude]

So glad they reworked DAO graphics. I would never gave gotten into the game otherwise.

I'd take brown filters over pixelated old school models any day.

Which kinda such sucks cause I'm told BioWares older games are amazing.

[cronshaw]

So glad they reworked DAO graphics. I would never gave gotten into the game otherwise.

I'd take brown filters over pixelated old school models any day.

Which kinda such sucks cause I'm told BioWares older games are amazing.

They are/were

I loved all those old iso RPGs from the 90s but I find it a bit tedious playing them nowadays

though that could have as much to do with just how many times I played them as it does with the games themselves

More than anything else it is getting from point A to point B on the map that seems like it takes forever

They are so cheap now though you should give them a try if you haven't already

[Raoni Luna]

So glad they reworked DAO graphics. I would never gave gotten into the game otherwise.

I'd take brown filters over pixelated old school models any day.

Which kinda such sucks cause I'm told BioWares older games are amazing.

For me graphics make absolutely no difference. Phantasy Star for Sega Master System or Inquisition for PS4 are the same, 8bit or last gen doesn't matter, that's why I left Bioware as my "weapon of choice" in favor of indie games that focus less on graphics and more on actual, interesting, content. That is because I know that a company like Bioware is not allowed to release a game with last gen graphics, they need to always do their best or lose their place in the market. Inquisition is by far their best graphics ever, never before they made a game so demanding on hardware, and it is very very beautiful, but for me it matters not.

Until NWN, graphics were absolutely not a priority, with DAO they seemed to invest a little more, then DA2 was just a bit better, but Inquisition is the first graphics heavy Bioware game. (Funny thin is that the feeling of seeing the grass flowing with the wind was the same I had when I first played NWN, time goes by and things are the same)
 

I guess graphics doesn't matter because a lot of people who played their earlier releases are into tabletop RPG and since there are no graphicsin tabletop, just imagination, graphics are not that much of a factor for us.

[EmissaryofLies]

Good for Bioware.

[Il Divo]

 

I guess graphics doesn't matter because a lot of people who played their earlier releases are into tabletop RPG and since there are no graphicsin tabletop, just imagination, graphics are not that much of a factor for us.

 

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. I'm a hard core table top fan and I consider graphics to have some importance, at least as it relates to creating a coherent setting. Video games, unlike table top, do have a visual component of the setting which can make all the difference in enjoyment of a story.  

[Fast Jimmy]

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).

Not to mention that Morrigan was originally conceived as a Sera-esque character, where she was almost child-like in her naïveté and world outlook. And that the main quest was envisioned as finding a MacGuffin sword that the Grey Wardens used to kill Archdemons, instead of the Ultimate Sacrifice/Dark Ritual option which became almost the signature choice of the game.

So yes - games change and go through iterations. In some ways, DA:I went through many of the same problems - story/scope changes, major engine changes, transitions to different/new consoles... the similarities are kind of stunning. And DA:O had a full five year cycle, so it makes me wonder what would have happened if this came out in April 2015.

[In Exile]

Not to mention that Morrigan was originally conceived as a Sera-esque character, where she was almost child-like in her naïveté and world outlook. And that the main quest was envisioned as finding a MacGuffin sword that the Grey Wardens used to kill Archdemons, instead of the Ultimate Sacrifice/Dark Ritual option which became almost the signature choice of the game.

So yes - games change and go through iterations. In some ways, DA:I went through many of the same problems - story/scope changes, major engine changes, transitions to different/new consoles... the similarities are kind of stunning. And DA:O had a full five year cycle, so it makes me wonder what would have happened if this came out in April 2015.

It depends on how hard it would be for Bioware to include the features they wanted. You can see the whole game centred around building the Inquisition - forces, connections and secrets. There would likely have been more varied and reactivity.

[Steppenwolf]

They've sure done a bang-up job capitalizing on the successful launch with DLC. Oh wait...

 

Seriously, when are they going to announce DLC? Obviously not any time soon(as indicated by Laidlaw), so how long are they going to wait? Every day that goes by is fewer customers to buy the DLC they put out. This is an EA game so we know that DLC has been in the pipeline since the game's inception. What's the deal? 

[X Equestris]

They've sure done a bang-up job capitalizing on the successful launch with DLC. Oh wait...
 
Seriously, when are they going to announce DLC? Obviously not any time soon(as indicated by Laidlaw), so how long are they going to wait? Every day that goes by is fewer customers to buy the DLC they put out. This is an EA game so we know that DLC has been in the pipeline since the game's inception. What's the deal?

Leviathan didn't come out until like five or more months after ME3. Inquisition dlc will probably be March or April, maybe later.

[SofaJockey]

They've sure done a bang-up job capitalizing on the successful launch with DLC. Oh wait...

 

Seriously, when are they going to announce DLC? Obviously not any time soon(as indicated by Laidlaw), so how long are they going to wait? Every day that goes by is fewer customers to buy the DLC they put out. This is an EA game so we know that DLC has been in the pipeline since the game's inception. What's the deal? 

 

If the identical release schedule is used as DA2, you would hear about DLC, first week of April, appearing mid-April (with a couple of weeks for holiday season). Mass Effect's dlc took even longer as the Extended Cut (arguably a patch rather than a dlc) got in the way, 6 months post launch.

 

DAO's 'Return to Ostagar' was quicker at 2 1/2 months, but was arguably a re-skin of the original location with snow.

 

This is how BioWare do it, and with the positive critical reception, press reception will be warm, and there's an even greater expectation that players will periodically come back to the game.

 

Not aimed at you, but this forum is very comfortable with shouting both of the following conflicting messages:

• ​Where's the game / dlc / patch etc - we want it now !!!! and
• It sucks, it was rushed, it was released 'broken'

BioWare should release dlc when they are good and ready - I don't blame them for not talking about it ! 

[Realmzmaster]

They've sure done a bang-up job capitalizing on the successful launch with DLC. Oh wait...

 

Seriously, when are they going to announce DLC? Obviously not any time soon(as indicated by Laidlaw), so how long are they going to wait? Every day that goes by is fewer customers to buy the DLC they put out. This is an EA game so we know that DLC has been in the pipeline since the game's inception. What's the deal? 

 

No it is far better that Bioware wait to release the dlc until about month four or five after main game release if Bioware is working on dlc. That way Bioware cannot be accused of cutting out game content from the main game to make the dlc.

Unless of course Bioware takes up a suggestion I made sometime ago that even if the dlc is finished at Day one do not release it until month four or five. But it still works the same way.

[AlanC9]

yeah I don't get that either
Leviathan came so late after ME3 because of the EC
 

Even if we ignore ME3' that still leaves us with DA2. Nothing to see here, move along.

[davepissedatending]

Considering the ambitions for this game it is a sale flop.
Being the best of Bioware isn't that much, really, Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests beat Bioware's best in launch week in Japan...
Also considering 4 consoles + PC, and all the marketing and... well... really not a success.
But yeah, godlike for Bioware, whoohoo... it is obvious that they were aiming at sales, since game have nothing good it was obviously made for achieving high sales, no surprise there, they sacrificed the amazing kind of game they used to make in order to sell, nothing worthy of discussing really, just the obvious
But again, IMO too much sacrificing of good things for a ridiculously small amount of extra sales. Compare Origins and Inquisition... I'm not even sure Inqui is going to make that much more money (multiplayer aside of course)

I thought inquisition was much better than Dao. Opinions huh

[Fast Jimmy]

Classifying video games is a colossal waste of time

I disagree, at least in part.

Classifying just to classify is worthless. However, analyzing a game's mechanics to observe what it can do well and where it is limited is extremely useful. It helps in determining what kind of game would appeal to me as a player and what type of mechanics work when incorporated, or which clash and conflict with each other.


There has never been a party based game, where you can guide each member of your party with equal levels of control and where unit placement/abilities used can be done tactically, that also had action elements tied to its combat. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please bring it to my attention and I'd be happy to give feedback.

DA:O's "slow" combat and auto-attack allowed unit placement to matter (instead or rewarding button mashing with more damage, or allowing most attack animations to be completely dodged by player reflex) by design. DA2 discards this by removing the camera's ability to see the battlefield, rewarding button mashing, allowing twitch dodges, etc. DA:I continues this by incorporating abilities that require aiming and reflex timing of the player, removing auto attack completely, making consistent unit placement incredibly difficult (if not impossible) and removing the tactics system almost entirely.

If the number of action-based, player skill combat elements rivals (or even outnumbers) the number of party-based, character skill combat elements, then you have an Action Combat game with RPG elements. Hence, ARPG.

I don't mind ARPGs, but they aren't done well when the action elements are held back by an attempt at strategy and party management. Similarly, tactical party based games fall apart when they reward the player more for taking control of one character the majority of the time for more optimal results (not to mention having a system the player has to fight just to give orders and commands to their party). And the fact that Bioware thinks they can just slap a camera on a system and it makes it instantly tactical and party-based is baffling to me. It requires an entire philosophy be built around the player's experience, not a list of features that can be crammed into a game just to make everyone happy.

[Fast Jimmy]

No it is far better that Bioware wait to release the dlc until about month four or five after main game release if Bioware is working on dlc. That way Bioware cannot be accused of cutting out game content from the main game to make the dlc.
Unless of course Bioware takes up a suggestion I made sometime ago that even if the dlc is finished at Day one do not release it until month four or five. But it still works the same way.

I'd say month three or four would be the most ideal. Five gets just a smudge too far outside of the public's perception for my tastes. Not to mention the number of competitors DA:I is going to get once Spring hits.

[Fast Jimmy]

It depends on how hard it would be for Bioware to include the features they wanted. You can see the whole game centred around building the Inquisition - forces, connections and secrets. There would likely have been more varied and reactivity.

 

True. Maybe it would have been pretty similar to the current version of the game only less... bug-prone. 

 

I honestly think DA:O was saved by its move to console. Being set to release on PC only in Spring 2008 and then being put on hold to have a seemless platform release on all consoles in November 2008 gave the team time to work on bugs and polish, but not change the game substantially. Being feature and new content locked six months prior to releaseand then spending the remaining dev time applying polish seems to be the most sane avenue of game development I can think of. Then again, it probably leaves certain teams dormant or not fully utilized (such as the writing or cinematic team), so it probably doesn't work as well from a pure project-management perspective. Still, I think it would be ideal for the best possible final product.

[SofaJockey]

I'd say month three or four would be the most ideal. Five gets just a smudge too far outside of the public's perception for my tastes. Not to mention the number of competitors DA:I is going to get once Spring hits.

 

I have to believe BioWare are aware that fantasy RPG attention will be elsewhere in early-mid May...

[wolfhowwl]

Wouldn't DA:O have been a financial disaster without console sales?

[Realmzmaster]

One aspect of DAO I found to be nonsensical is the tactical camera's line of sight and scope . The gamer as fas as I am concerned should not be able to see beyond what the party could conceivably see. The Realms of Arkania games came closest to using line of the sight the way it was suppose to be used. If the mage did not have a line of sight to the enemy then the magic bolt could not be fired at that enemy. A fireball could be casted into the area but without line of sight there was no guarantee that any enemy would be hit or even there.

 

The problem with DAO's encounter design was that they were set battle pieces where the player could see the enemy and set up the party. Most combat does not work that way. Most combat is more fluid and  works more like DA2 especially in urban areas with the enemy coming from different directions (aside from parachuting fully armored warriors and the waves). 

 

As far as being a action rpg DAO also fits in that category when compared to Temple of Elemental Evil or Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor which are turn based games where who gets to attack first is based on initiative. Realtime pause and play have always been Bioware's bread and butter when it comes to combat.

[Morroian]

DA:O's "slow" combat and auto-attack allowed unit placement to matter (instead or rewarding button mashing with more damage, or allowing most attack animations to be completely dodged by player reflex) by design. DA2 discards this by removing the camera's ability to see the battlefield, rewarding button mashing, allowing twitch dodges, etc. DA:I continues this 
 

 

I largely agree with your post but I have to say with DA2 that it was still possible for easy unit placement it just didn't matter due to the poor encounter design. I maintain that I was able to play it tactically on nightmare although obviously that would have been enhanced with a more scrolled out view and I cannot play DAI the same way.

[Realmzmaster]

Wouldn't DA:O have been a financial disaster without console sales?

 

Not necessarily given is its' 5 year development time and the fact that most of the sales where on the consoles as opposed to PC. It may have broken even if only released on PC, but that is speculation on my part.

 

What I do know that Bioware had to look to Elevation Partners. Elevation partners also funded Pandemic. The three formed a partnership with Elevation Partners as the majority partner. Elevation Partners invested $300 million dollars into the partnership, before selling the partnership to EA in Nov. 2007 for $775-860 Million.

[cronshaw]

I disagree, at least in part.

Classifying just to classify is worthless. However, analyzing a game's mechanics to observe what it can do well and where it is limited is extremely useful. It helps in determining what kind of game would appeal to me as a player and what type of mechanics work when incorporated, or which clash and conflict with each other.


There has never been a party based game, where you can guide each member of your party with equal levels of control and where unit placement/abilities used can be done tactically, that also had action elements tied to its combat. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please bring it to my attention and I'd be happy to give feedback.

DA:O's "slow" combat and auto-attack allowed unit placement to matter (instead or rewarding button mashing with more damage, or allowing most attack animations to be completely dodged by player reflex) by design. DA2 discards this by removing the camera's ability to see the battlefield, rewarding button mashing, allowing twitch dodges, etc. DA:I continues this by incorporating abilities that require aiming and reflex timing of the player, removing auto attack completely, making consistent unit placement incredibly difficult (if not impossible) and removing the tactics system almost entirely.

If the number of action-based, player skill combat elements rivals (or even outnumbers) the number of party-based, character skill combat elements, then you have an Action Combat game with RPG elements. Hence, ARPG.

I don't mind ARPGs, but they aren't done well when the action elements are held back by an attempt at strategy and party management. Similarly, tactical party based games fall apart when they reward the player more for taking control of one character the majority of the time for more optimal results (not to mention having a system the player has to fight just to give orders and commands to their party). And the fact that Bioware thinks they can just slap a camera on a system and it makes it instantly tactical and party-based is baffling to me. It requires an entire philosophy be built around the player's experience, not a list of features that can be crammed into a game just to make everyone happy.

I just don't think it adds anything substantive to a discussion of quality. 

And frankly the classifications aren't established enough or rigorous enough to be meaningful

examining the features of a game to try to determine whether or not you'll like it is different than engaging in "barroom arguments" about whether or not something is an aRPG or tRPG

The game is the game (this may sound flippant, but what I mean is the quality of the game should be judged on its own merits not on conceptions of what the game should or shouldn't have been); labeling it an aRPG doesn't do anything but allow people to pigeonhole it.

Frankly it does way more harm than good

[Alice Phoenix]

It was probably mentioned somewhere but the hours counted by origin is not accurate. If I leave the game running but don't play, it counts that as game time. And in offline mode it doesn't count it. So who knows what it really is