BG had stats and lots of classes not just 3.
BG2, the good one, had stats and even more classes and kits.
No they are not returning to form.
In Inquisition your character is your gear, you class is your weapon. Deffinetly not returning to form.
Very well put.
BG had stats and lots of classes not just 3.
BG2, the good one, had stats and even more classes and kits.
No they are not returning to form.
In Inquisition your character is your gear, you class is your weapon. Deffinetly not returning to form.
Not only that. In the old good DnD days, race selection meant something. There were huge bonuses and drawbacks for selectin each particular race i.e. Halfings being restricted from using large weapons and armors because of their small frame.
Now we have some laughable +x% to defense against y. Everything else is pure cosmetic.
I am not looking for a debate. I'd really appreciate if you explain your points I can't get. Points are cited and my doubts are put.
So, would you?
I'll give you the short version:
(1) I do not agree with your assessment of DAI's story elements. Heck, I don't even agree with your description. We do not have a common base for debate, and in order to engage in a debate, I'd first have to dismantle about 90% of your premises. I am disinclined to do that. Too much work for too little gain.
(2) For me, at the core of roleplaying lies the ability to shape key aspects of a character by expressing him or her and making decisions within the context of a story. Ideally, we should be able to shape our character completely, but that has never been possible in a video game. Whether a roleplaying video game works for you or not depends on whether it's possible to create a character you would like to play. In that sense, DAI works for me, though I think the ability to take Corypheus' place (without necessarily copying his attitude) should have been in the game. There are other things I would like to have in an rpg, but this is the core.
(2a) As for things like attributes and such, DA has always disassociated the combat system from the roleplaying, i.e. stats mean nothing except for combat. I dislike this design decision, but I can live with having a combat system that's meaningless for the rest of my character except for my class, since videogames have too much combat to be even remotely believeable anyway. Combat is a game (read: nonessential for my roleplaying experience), the rest of the game is a story where I can roleplay. It's not ideal, but it works.
Not only that. In the old good DnD days, race selection meant something. There were huge bonuses and drawbacks for selectin each particular race i.e. Halfings being restricted from using large weapons and armors because of their small frame.
Now we have some laughable +x% to defense against y. Everything else is pure cosmetic.
I can't make an elf two handed warrior...looks ridiculous.
*giggles*
Hello, BiowareMod03. I see you.
I can't make an elf two handed warrior...looks ridiculous.
In DnD ? You can.
Tevos, I'm not sure I see your logic.
Because a person enjoys roleplaying as developing a character through choices and such that somehow summarises that they would only enjoy the Sims if they even play because of wohooing and decorating as oppose to using it to craft a story spanning generations with multiple and individualised characters?
Also, for a person someone who claims no offence as an intent you sure seemed to have gone out of your way to cause offence.
That, too, needs a story context. As in "who are these people and why are they after me"? Ideally, this would be a true encounter with some dialogue included, and possibly a way to resolve it without having to fight. So I maintain, combat alone is insufficient to make something interesting, regardless of how well-designed the actual fight turns out to be. If what I described is what you meant by "scripted combat", then we are in agreement.
Sort of in agreement...I think there are way too many pointless generic encounters in most roleplaying games and tying them to a story context will probably make for fewer, but more engaging and tactically balanced combats.
However if I embark on a generic and bit of boring quest, it can be glossed over if it is concluded through a good, tactically challening combat, at least I am doing something which I find fun, figuring out a good strategy and making tactical decisions. This is part of my fun with rpg-games, so for me, good combat mechanics can balance out a lot of other design flaws.
For me, combat bonuses are completely secondary. What matters is the different perspectives brought into the story by the different races. There is room for improvement in that area of DAI, yes, but I consider more race-specifice dialogue choices more important.Not only that. In the old good DnD days, race selection meant something. There were huge bonuses and drawbacks for selectin each particular race i.e. Halfings being restricted from using large weapons and armors because of their small frame.
Now we have some laughable +x% to defense against y. Everything else is pure cosmetic.
The amount of classes in NWN was ridiculous and ended up being very pointless.
For you. For me it was still not enough. Soemtimes even the whole 3.5 material including 3rd party is not enough. But I guess you will never know the difference between roleplaying a cloaked dancer, a master of many masks and a battle dancer. Or a thrall of makcanthet, a heartwarder and a fist of the forest. Too many classes, lots of awesomeness, how will I ever deal with DA 3 classes?
For you. For me it was still not enough. Soemtimes even the whole 3.5 material including 3rd party is not enough. But I guess you will never know the difference between roleplaying a cloaked dancer, a master of many masks and a battle dancer. Or a thrall of makcanthet, a heartwarder and a fist of the forest. Too many classes, lots of awesomeness, how will I ever deal with DA 3 classes?
Not sure I want to know actually, I never saw a point to role play a class in NWN setting especially when you could have gazillion multiclasses, but most annoying was the NWN combat, such a bore to me, especially in early levels:
*hit and miss*
*hit and miss*
*hit and miss*
*hit and miss*
*hit aaaaaand miss*
Not saying that you shouldn't do it or like it, though, if it's your thing. It's not mine.
It's sort of why I liked the silent protagonist so much. When I choose an option and it's worded in such a way but said in a different way, it feels forced and wrong. Silent protagonists that select their choices, you don't get that double talk. They could just remedy that by having what they are about to say displayed. We the viewers shouldn't need our personal translator for what the voice actor is about to say.
I don't like the silent protagonist that much, but i liked the lines we were given. If you had a voice actor reading those lines instead of the damn conversation branch tree, it would be so much better. The reason i can go with Inquisition so well is that i like that type of story, i am almost always exclusively good in games like that, so it fits my type of roleplaying.
I do agree with the thread starter that the zones had little to no impact on the main narrative. The open zones can work and they were beautiful, but they need to have a purpose like we had in Origins. You didn't go to the Deep Roads just for kicks, you went there to find a Paragon.
When it comes to classes i think the 3 archetypes work well. I like builds in Neverwinter Nights and stuff like that, but it is just to much from time to time. You can have fewer classes, but equal depth. I wish they removed many of the weapon and armor restrictions. I don't understand why a rogue can't use swords, axes or maces. Also made the specializations into something more. I was hoping the Knight Enchanter would be similar to Arcane Warrior. Mage in plate dealing out justice. So much to think about and discuss, and i am very bad at formulating.
@Akrabra:
Not to place too much importance on a minor point, but you *can* play a mage in heavy warrior armor. Just make it from Silverite. I don't like so much metal, but my KE spent some time running around in rogue armor, and I only switched back to mage armor because Snoufleur hide-brown isn't the most interesting color.
so wait... no role playing?
u use a metal armor with a wizard who use lightning skills?
btw...
=)
This is a re-post of something I posted earlier in the Scuttlebutt section, and someone suggested that I should post it in the Feedback forum as a separate thread, so I'm doing that.
-----------
-----------
Big Snip
Good ideas... for a RPG style game. EA, however, believes otherwise.
You and I and the "Old Guard" understand what a RPG game is all about..... but we are a niche market. On the other hand, EA quarterly financial statements clearly indicates where the revenue stream market is located....... that is consoles, action style games with Multi Player micro transactions.
It is a myopic view in EA's part to believe MP games with micro transactions or even a subscription based model can be made sustainable. After a month or two, the player runs out of content. The game, then becomes boring. To keep the player, EA has to invest in presenting new content. How much new content can they produce every month before a players goes through it?? What about the cost of producing this content?.
It is indeed an unfortunate situation today, that good 'ole RPGs are going out of style. Especially when Chief Creative Officer for Electroni Arts says "..Our games are actually still too hard to learn..". With that attitude, do you really believe this character listens to our suggestions?
Full article here: http://www.gamespot....n/1100-6425141/
@Akrabra:
Not to place too much importance on a minor point, but you *can* play a mage in heavy warrior armor. Just make it from Silverite. I don't like so much metal, but my KE spent some time running around in rogue armor, and I only switched back to mage armor because Snoufleur hide-brown isn't the most interesting color.
That is very true, and thanks for pointing it out.
Good ideas... for a RPG style game. EA, however, believes otherwise.
You and I and the "Old Guard" understand what a RPG game is all about..... but we are a niche market. On the other hand, EA quarterly financial statements clearly indicates where the revenue stream market is located....... that is consoles, action style games with Multi Player micro transactions.
It is a myopic view in EA's part to believe MP games with micro transactions or even a subscription based model can be made sustainable. After a month or two, the player runs out of content. The game, then becomes boring. To keep the player, EA has to invest in presenting new content. How much new content can they produce every month before a players goes through it?? What about the cost of producing this content?.
It is indeed an unfortunate situation today, that good 'ole RPGs are going out of style. Especially when Chief Creative Officer for Electroni Arts says "..Our games are actually still too hard to learn..". With that attitude, do you really believe this character listens to our suggestions?
Full article here: http://www.gamespot....n/1100-6425141/
Not many years ago EA decided that their games shouldn't come with manuals anymore. The claimed it was because of enviromental issues. Saving the trees etc, but still. They actually removed the instructions for how to play their games, and now they complain about their gamers not being able to learn how to play 
Lovely logic there.
Without a story to give it meaning, combat is as much of a chore as picking up stuff
And here I was secretly hoping we could play some Diablo 3 together!
It is indeed an unfortunate situation today, that good 'ole RPGs are going out of style.
Nope.
Divinity, Pillars of Eternnity, Torment: Tides of Numenera etc etc
It's just Bioware/EA who no longer do these kind of games. It's just time to face reality. The good old Bioware is dead, for better or worse they are focusing the action market.
Good ideas... for a RPG style game. EA, however, believes otherwise.
You and I and the "Old Guard" understand what a RPG game is all about..... but we are a niche market. On the other hand, EA quarterly financial statements clearly indicates where the revenue stream market is located....... that is consoles, action style games with Multi Player micro transactions.
It is a myopic view in EA's part to believe MP games with micro transactions or even a subscription based model can be made sustainable. After a month or two, the player runs out of content. The game, then becomes boring. To keep the player, EA has to invest in presenting new content. How much new content can they produce every month before a players goes through it?? What about the cost of producing this content?.
It is indeed an unfortunate situation today, that good 'ole RPGs are going out of style. Especially when Chief Creative Officer for Electroni Arts says "..Our games are actually still too hard to learn..". With that attitude, do you really believe this character listens to our suggestions?
Full article here: http://www.gamespot....n/1100-6425141/
Will anyone listen....and implement the suggestions? Perhaps not, but giving feedback can't hurt.
Beyond that, I'm somewhat fatalistic about these things. I've been playing games on electronic media for 35 years now, and in all that time, they've gone through a lot of changes. The first cprgs were little more than combat simulators with a token story added. I didn't like those. Then action games were made which had a fascinating stories. I liked those. Then came the age of Fallout, PST, Arcanum and BG, and finally DAO. The best time was the time just before the switch to voiced protagonists. In a few decades, cRPGs had evolved to include branching dialogue depending on character traits and storylines based on your decisions, but hadn't been crippled yet by the implementation of voice-acting and all the organizational and monetary necessities that came with it and removed a great deal of flexibility from the development process. I do like my voiced protagonists, and DAI is on a good way, but I don't think the genre has recovered from the implementation of full voice acting yet. Will it ever? Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. If not, perhaps I'll find other types of games I like, perhaps I'll stop playing games, or play those that do get made for what they are.
Until then, all I can do is buy the games I like (easy), avoid those I don't like (also easy), and post feedback here and there in the hope that the evolution of video games will include things I like. Otherwise, I am a long-time gamer, but, as much as my post count may suggest otherwise, games aren't my life. I rarely get angry about a game unless I feel betrayed by it (Hello ME3), and my hunger for stories is just as well satisfied by books.
I am, however, cautiously optimistic. I said DAI appears like a good start. I don't think it's impossible that the next DA game will build on this, since it's clearly made an impression.
Nope.
Divinity, Pillars of Eternnity, Torment: Tides of Numenera etc etc
It's just Bioware/EA who no longer do these kind of games. It's just time to face reality. The good old Bioware is dead, for better or worse they are focusing the action market.
I have no idea what people mean by "focusing on the action market", even less with regard to what I wrote. I never mentioned combat in my OP, and that's where the "action" label would apply, right? Combat style is not very important to me, as long as I can slow it down enough to be playable, and I have played action games with excellent stories.
Also, I like the Bioware-style cinematic presentation and fully voiced protagonists. Those other games don't have that. I'm curious about what POE will offer and I think it will fill a gap - after all, I'm a gold backer - but I expect my favorite type of game would include something from the older-style games as well as something from Bioware, and none of the games currently in development appear to have it all.
Tevos, I'm not sure I see your logic.
Because a person enjoys roleplaying as developing a character through choices and such that somehow summarises that they would only enjoy the Sims if they even play because of wohooing and decorating as oppose to using it to craft a story spanning generations with multiple and individualised characters?
Also, for a person someone who claims no offence as an intent you sure seemed to have gone out of your way to cause offence.
Ofc you can't get my point as my post was removed. Won't get into details here as I've given a promise I want to keep, but you're free to ask in PM.
And here I was secretly hoping we could play some Diablo 3 together!
Little chance 
I take it you wouldn't like my tabletop rpg campaigns. The average number of fights per session is less than one...
Nope.
Divinity, Pillars of Eternnity, Torment: Tides of Numenera etc etc
It's just Bioware/EA who no longer do these kind of games. It's just time to face reality. The good old Bioware is dead, for better or worse they are focusing the action market.
Divinity OS was decent in some ways, but you ended up with many useless spells and the combat lost flavor after awhile. I do like the action points system if you are doing turn based. Also the lore and story in that game was not strong at all, not compared to Ego Draconis, which is magnificent.
Pillars of Eternity looks very interesting and Obsidian is known to make some great games, and i am hoping that since this is self published / published by us, that they have really finished and polished the game. I am a backer and really looking forward to it.
Torment again seems very interesting, i just hope it can distance itself from Planescape, and at the same time have the strengths of that game. Hopefully Chris is in on the writing aswell. Backed aswell.
There are alot of rpg's on the horizon and had good releases last year, many of them isometric which i enjoy. I just see the room for more types of rpg and i accept that Bioware has abandoned that gameplay style. The gameplay may be more action oriented, but it still has depth that could rival an isometric D&D rpg. The classes in DA:I and their specialization have so many traces from D&D and builds well on them. Some classes is made more interesting, and some over the top. Working on putting together a full report on it and posting it here as feedback.
Divinity OS was decent in some ways, but you ended up with many useless spells and the combat lost flavor after awhile. I do like the action points system if you are doing turn based. Also the lore and story in that game was not strong at all, not compared to Ego Draconis, which is magnificent.
Pillars of Eternity looks very interesting and Obsidian is known to make some great games, and i am hoping that since this is self published / published by us, that they have really finished and polished the game. I am a backer and really looking forward to it.
Torment again seems very interesting, i just hope it can distance itself from Planescape, and at the same time have the strengths of that game. Hopefully Chris is in on the writing aswell. Backed aswell.
There are alot of rpg's on the horizon and had good releases last year, many of them isometric which i enjoy. I just see the room for more types of rpg and i accept that Bioware has abandoned that gameplay style. The gameplay may be more action oriented, but it still has depth that could rival an isometric D&D rpg. The classes in DA:I and their specialization have so many traces from D&D and builds well on them. Some classes is made more interesting, and some over the top. Working on putting together a full report on it and posting it here as feedback.
Shroud of the Avatar is out soon too. Made by the fellow who crated the Ultima games. The series EA milked dry and ruined.
Retour en haut