152 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Combat OTOH is a totally ambitious RPG set. At one time the line might have been "die rolls" as opposed to "player control" but that line has been obliterated by the new Fallout games, all the Witcher games, The TES games and Mass Effect where combat is about my skills more than just my character's skills and has no resemblance to Dragon Age or Diablo combat.

Right. If there was ever a time when you could define "RPG" as a genre without player skill, that time has passed. I suppose the action-RPG distinction still has some usefulness, though.

[Hexoduen]

You do not make choices in most games, or more to the point you don't make material choices. RPGs, generally, will have more than one end state to the world. In Bioshock Infinite you have a lot of RPG elements in terms of leveling up, character progression and skill selection but in the end there is only one outcome. Borderlands has classes, customization and leveling but, again, at the end the world is the same for me and you and everyone else who played the game. Something like the original Bioshock was the closest to having more than one state, two granted, and was really straddling that line. Everything including sports games have borrowed the leveling and character progression mechanism to the degree that doesn't say anything about RPG.

Combat OTOH is a totally ambitious RPG set. At one time the line might have been "die rolls" as opposed to "player control" but that line has been obliterated by the new Fallout games, all the Witcher games, The TES games and Mass Effect where combat is about my skills more than just my character's skills and has no resemblance to Dragon Age or Diablo combat.

 

Yes. IMO an RPG is where we act our roles as characters. This might be as in a Telltale Games narrative-driven RPG with hardly any combat at all, but with choices and differences in the story (albeit seemingly less in some of their titles) or it may be as a more classical RPG where you have choices regarding most every single aspect of the game, be it character building, combat, or choices in the story.

 

I'd say 'old-school' RPG consists of more roleplaying elements, while today with the hybrids we see (Borderlands etc.) the term RPG has become so loose that it doesn't need all these elements in order to be an RPG. All it needs is for us to be able to play a character, to play a role in a story, hence the name.

[TevinterSupremacist]

EA should go full on action rpg.

I believe EA already did.

[AlanC9]

Yes. IMO an RPG is where we act our roles as characters. This might be as in a Telltale Games narrative-driven RPG with hardly any combat at all, but with choices and differences in the story (albeit seemingly less in some of their titles) or it may be as a more classical RPG where you have choices regarding most every single aspect of the game, be it character building, combat, or choices in the story.
 
I'd say 'old-school' RPG consists of more roleplaying elements, while today with the hybrids we see (Borderlands etc.) the term RPG has become so loose that it doesn't need all these elements in order to be an RPG. All it needs is for us to be able to play a character, to play a role in a story, hence the name.

Note that most of the older RPGs didn't have all of the elements themselves. Choices in the story were typically nonexistent, and character builds were generally quite simplistic.

[Bioware-Critic]

Yeah, that to. I don't know what possessed Bioware to go the hole one specialization path in DAI. I mean i understand the motivation for the one specialization but the ship already sailed, making changes like that mid-series just breaks the lore and getting rid of (what was it, three established schools of magic) and taking some of those spells from the schools that have disappeared from the game and to have made them specialization specific abilities.....

 

LORE!!!!!!! don't break!!!

 

Man, I love playing mages in RPG's - period! But in Inquisition I really get the impression that mages are no longer welcome! As a warrior you get a lot of stuff to dabble around in but as a mage you get silly old "fire, ice , lightning" It does not get more stupid than that - EVEEEEEERRRRRR And on top of that they give us only one specialization. I really have no words for that man! I am soooooooo disappointed in Bioware and Inquisition. Out of pure desperation I even started my second playthrough as an Archer, because I could not stand playing as a mage in Inquisition! And THAT says a whole lot about this game ...

I practically always play mages in every RPG I have ever played, the DA series is one of my favorites (because of Origins, admittedly) and I stopped playing mages in my second playthrough ...

 

That is some real disturbing s*hit, man! One specialization is way to little room to maneuver for anyone and the way they handled this whole "one-specialization-thing" is horrid anyway !!! They really failed on all accounts. Bioware practically destroyed the fun and the freedom of character-growth and character-developement just that much more, for me, with this nonsense ...

[Rawgrim]

Perhaps you are thinking of action-adventure games?

 

 

Thing is that whenever I think of action game it always boils down to combat and that I always associate it with combat mechanics that relies on reflexes. I never noticed such mechanics in DA.

 

Diablo is not an rpg and it's not an action game, it's a hack and slash dungeon crawler game.

 

Every single ability or skill you have in DA:I is tied to combat. Zero has to do with non-combat skills. That means the focus is combat and action.

[Teddie Sage]

You can still unlock doors with rogues, smash through walls with warriors, defeat barriers with mages, unlock conversation perks that used to be skills in Dragon Age Origins... I don't think we should complain.

[sleeping heart]

Man, I love playing mages in RPG's - period! But in Inquisition I really get the impression that mages are no longer welcome! As a warrior you get a lot of stuff to dabble around in but as a mage you get silly old "fire, ice , lightning" It does not get more stupid than that - EVEEEEEERRRRRR And on top of that they give us only one specialization. I really have no words for that man! I am soooooooo disappointed in Bioware and Inquisition. Out of pure desperation I even started my second playthrough as an Archer, because I could not stand playing as a mage in Inquisition! And THAT says a whole lot about this game ...

I practically always play mages in every RPG I have ever played, the DA series is one of my favorites (because of Origins, admittedly) and I stopped playing mages in my second playthrough ...

 

That is some real disturbing s*hit, man! One specialization is way to little room to maneuver for anyone and the way they handled this whole "one-specialization-thing" is horrid anyway !!! They really failed on all accounts. Bioware practically destroyed the fun and the freedom of character-growth and character-developement just that much more - for me - with this nonsense ...

 

I'm with ya'. In DA:O and even DA2, i played mostly as a Spirit/Entropy mage i only had a few Primal spells. i miss Entropy so much

[TheOgre]

choices aren't as brutal for me in DAI as they were in DAO. Didn't feel like my decisions were as impactful in DAO. I could repeat all the things I found wrong with DAI but you guys already saw them in previous posts. 

 

As someone said and I will echo, if they fixed some SMALL things in the game like tactical zoom or vision, auto key is a thing already, and allow customized shift modifier controls for PC players (I want my custom key combinations).. Ect.. ect..

 

ps.. it seems they hybridized the mage into barrier batteries and low dps archers.. At least DA2 had good magic.

[ThreeF]

Every single ability or skill you have in DA:I is tied to combat. Zero has to do with non-combat skills. That means the focus is combat and action.

I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say, but in many TRPG/SRPG all your skills are combat skills (with an odd thief class here and there opening locks) and they are still called RPG and they always were called that.

[10K]

I'm with ya'. In DA:O and even DA2, i played mostly as a Spirit/Entropy mage i only had a few Primal spells. i miss Entropy so much

Yes. This is something I didn't understand. Why they got ride of all the other tree lines for mages, and left the player with only elemental magic?

[TheOgre]

Yes. This is something I didn't understand. Why they got ride of all the other tree lines for mages, and left the player with only elemental magic?

 

as some theorized, they are dumbing down games to become easier on both player and most importantly probably, the game designer.

 

Instead of making it hard first and then scaling the game down by difficulty with % nerfs and ability nerfs, they just do flat % nerfs on damage/health.

 

:/ Oh and yeah, they probably found fire ice thunder necromancy rift mage knight-enchanter to easy to design for.. But then found that Knight-Enchanter was hard to design for in a fair way.

[FKA_Servo]

I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say, but in many TRPG/SRPG all your skills are combat skills (with an odd thief class here and there opening locks) and they are still called RPG and they always were called that.

 

And the lockpicking is still tied to perks. The only difference is there are two levels as opposed to three.

 

I did notice the lack of persuade options, but the dialog perks do basically the same thing. I thought they were a great addition.

[Naphtali]

You want the player to define combat, through skill, ingenuity, and inventiveness.

 

In a game like fallout 3 if you encounter a death claw, you determine the outcome of the battle not simply level and gear, can you out maneuver it,maybe place mines around, can you poison it, can you shoot its legs to weaken mobility.

 

If that scenario happened in the "true RPG" sense that people have been indoctrinated into, you simply would die for being under leveled 

 

Skill, ingenuity, inventiveness, cunning come from the player, ME trilogy more so 2 and 3, esp obvious in multiplayer. Fallout 3/Vegas, Witcher 2 and soon to be 3,  dark souls etc.

 

In these games gear and leveling is important, but they function more like perks to enhance the players vision of  how they want to play instead of dominating it

 

In order to make combat have these qualities of being more player defined ti must have tremendous depth, not just for the combat, but for everything interrelated to it.

 

In reality, supposed "true RPG gamers" are the "press button and watch something awesome happen" players, mmo agro enemy press a couple of keys to trigger animations, and win because of gear and level combat. Rinse and repeat.

 

The other extreme is also true esp for 1st person shooters, enemy increase health not tactics, so its just a matter of getting a bigger gun. At least 3rd person shooters help to solve this by making the game more about cover and precision.

 

Games like Farcry 3, Force Unleashed, Batman arkym series to name a few added RPG aspects, but they are  linear, they don't evolve down different pathways. Sadly DA I and DA2 feels more closer to these type of games than to a Skyrim

[KaiserShep]

Every single ability or skill you have in DA:I is tied to combat. Zero has to do with non-combat skills. That means the focus is combat and action.

 

The return of dialogue options based on the perk system was a nice addition, I thought. It's not much different from persuasion, albeit it's underutilized by comparison.

[Rawgrim]

You want the player to define combat, through skill, ingenuity, and inventiveness.

 

In a game like fallout 3 if you encounter a death claw, you determine the outcome of the battle not simply level and gear, can you out maneuver it,maybe place mines around, can you poison it, can you shoot its legs to weaken mobility.

 

If that scenario happened in the "true RPG" sense that people have been indoctrinated into, you simply would die for being under leveled 

 

Skill, ingenuity, inventiveness, cunning come from the player, ME trilogy more so 2 and 3, esp obvious in multiplayer. Fallout 3/Vegas, Witcher 2 and soon to be 3,  dark souls.

 

Great depth in all combat systems and everything interrelated must have substantial depth, Skyrim was masterful at this.

 

In reality supposed "true RPG gamers" are the "press button and watch something awesome happen" players, mmo agro enemy press a couple of keys to trigger animations, and win because of gear and level combat. Rinse and repeat.

 

The other extreme is also true esp for 1st person shooters

 

Also you could sneak past the Deathclaw if you have a good Stealth skill.

[10K]

as some theorized, they are dumbing down games to become easier on both player and most importantly probably, the game designer. Instead of making it hard first and then scaling the game down by difficulty with % nerfs and ability nerfs, they just do flat % nerfs on damage/health. :/ Oh and yeah, they probably found fire ice thunder necromancy rift mage knight-enchanter to easy to design for.. But then found that Knight-Enchanter was hard to design for in a fair way.

If this is true, I can't wait to see what else they'll rip from the next game.

[Rawgrim]

The return of dialogue options based on the perk system was a nice addition, I thought. It's not much different from persuasion, albeit it's underutilized by comparison.

 

I agree with you in part. Since the perks are tied to the inquisition and not the character itself, it isn't the same as making choices about improving your character's diplomacy skills and such. The perks the inquisition gives you is outside of the character itself, and therefore more like an item or something like that.

[Rawgrim]

If this is true, I can't wait to see what else they'll rip from the next game.

 

Auto leveling might be something the add. You level up, and the game just gives you the next spell or something like that. Like Diablo 3 did it. Pretty sure that is the next step of removing choices.

[sleeping heart]

Auto leveling might be something the add. You level up, and the game just gives you the next spell or something like that. Like Diablo 3 did it. Pretty sure that is the next step of removing choices.

 

They are half way there with their decision to automatically allocate attribute points.

[10K]

They are half way there with their decision to automatically allocate attribute points.

So True!! 

[Rawgrim]

They are half way there with their decision to automatically allocate attribute points.

 

Yes. And for our character (outside of our gender or race) we are down to 5 options. Guy with spells, guy with 2 daggers, guy with bow, guy with huge weapon, or guy with sword  shield.

 

So actually less options than in Diablo.

[Teddie Sage]

Yes. And for our character (outside of our gender or race) we are down to 5 options. Guy with spells, guy with 2 daggers, guy with bow, guy with huge weapon, or guy with sword  shield.

 

So actually less options than in Diablo.

That's basically 40 variations with different dialogue options and battle styles.

[sleeping heart]

So True!! 

 

I remember when i first started playing DAI and got my first level up. i spent a good three minutes and a google search trying to figure out how to spend my attribute points only to learn, i can't

[Rawgrim]

That's basically 40 variations with different dialogue options and battle styles.

 

5 battle styles. Very few different dialogue options too.

 

But lets say it has 40 variations. Compare that to Baldur's Gate 2. I bet you 40 will look like a pathetically small number.