264 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Artifice]

like we're literally in the absolute apex of WW3 here which is being waged in economic terms.

 

Literally, guys. Literally at the apex of WW3. This is serious news. 

[FKA_Servo]

Plain and simple: BW should do better and not slacking off and just want high sales, they should've put quality over quantity. They resting on their lauerls and thinking that no one can make a better RPG better than them. But Witcher 3 topples Inquisition and they better get on the ball or they will never will be relevant in the gaming world. That's how I see it.

CDPR has yet to make a better RPG than Bioware, for one. The Witcher 3 might very well be one of the best games in the last 5 years or more, but it's still a bad RPG.

Also no offense but have any of you "market fans" considered that trying to appeal to the market is by far the most volatile and insane thing as far as tastes and preferences go?

Especially nowadays with extreme concentrations of wealth and topheavy volatile interconnected societies it really feels like the entire world is about to rupture at any moment sometimes.

The whole point about the "market" is if you try and appeal to it or keep it in mind everything explodes.

Hardcore gamers, while fewer perhaps in number, at least their tastes and preferences are consistent. The most reliable market invention of the past 20 years has been to ignore the market and just sell highly derivative games because it's the only non-volatile market there is in the world basically.

People keep waiting (hoping?) for the gaming market to shift or tastes to collapse but it turns out gamers are typically actually honest and like things because they are good and not because they are trendy.

Hardcore gamers have been lamenting their own inability to move to the next thing but that's precisely the force that's causing so much good in the world, they're giving an example of people who as I say just like things because they are illustrating you can like things without just jumping to the next thing.

Using "Market approaches" is the stuff of all those businesses that got burned in the Great Depression and every other screwed up era in history that eventually culminated in like 500000 wars.

I mean there has never been such a thing as a "stable successful business." What's the oldest business in the world anyway? That still bears the name of it's founders or whatever?

No such thing, they're always wiped out in all these periodic fluctuations and mass death wars.

I'm starting to think that you must occupy a completely different reality than everyone else here. Your perspective on everything is just about perfectly backwards, sideways, and upside down.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It's really not, you found one company that's been around for hundreds of years, yay.

 

Lets compare that to the millions that have been eviscerated for heeding "market logic."

 

The market is just a synonym for the business death cycle that reaps and sows. It's like trusting a sociopathic 17 times convicted felon.

 

Not only that, the only successful businesses are usually the ones that resist the cycle.

 

I mean the Reapers in ME are basically just global market forces.

 

That's a very cute rant and all, but I'm not sure what it's doing in a video game forum. For your information, you're also posting on the private space Bioware and EA lend their fans for discussion. There are better ways to stick it to The Man.

 

And with that said, I'm moving on.

 

@Cyonan: trust the Irish to keep what's really important alive  .

 

Also, to add to the discussion about Bioware going back, I dearly wish they never touch the D&D ruleset again. Ever. I hate it with a passion. Pillars of Eternity has a computer RPG ruleset done right. Fallout's SPECIAL system is done right. The Dragon Age ruleset is pretty good, if they wouldn't change it every game for some reason or another. D&D (and especially 2nd ed.) is a total mess of opaque rules and instant-win magical BS as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it works for tabletop; for a single-player RPG, it doesn't. That's the sole reason I haven't replayed BG2 yet, and just can't be bothered to finish BG1.

[Seraphim24]

Really? It's a sideways perspective to point out the business cycle is simply an expression of extreme chaos and often violence that instead of continuing in physicals forms, manifest itself in more economic terms that continued on into the present? Or that the current present point in time is filled with profound economic and social chaos?

 

Isn't that like exactly the plot of Wolf of Wall Street or whatever? Gordon Gekco? I'm not making this stuff up that's what these people tell me. Maybe instead of blaming my lack of acumen since I've proven time and time again to be so inept, you should help a lost soul and point me to those movies about the profound healing power of day trading. 

 

I'm bummed DeathRobot beat me to the point about the Irish though, they totally do try to keep what's really important alive 

[Seraphim24]

That's a very cute rant and all, but I'm not sure what it's doing in a video game forum. For your information, you're also posting on the private space Bioware and EA lend their fans for discussion. There are better ways to stick it to The Man.

 

And with that said, I'm moving on.

 

@Cyonan: trust the Irish to keep what's really important alive  .

 

Also, to add to the discussion about Bioware going back, I dearly wish they never touch the D&D ruleset again. Ever. I hate it with a passion. Pillars of Eternity has a computer RPG ruleset done right. Fallout's SPECIAL system is done right. The Dragon Age ruleset is pretty good, if they wouldn't change it every game for some reason or another. D&D (and especially 2nd ed.) is a total mess of opaque rules and instant-win magical BS as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it works for tabletop; for a single-player RPG, it doesn't. That's the sole reason I haven't replayed BG2 yet, and just can't be bothered to finish BG1.

 

Well if you hate games so much maybe you shouldn't play them? Might relieve some stress... 

 

You could even watch GoT! Oh yeah that show sucks though... 

[Lady Artifice]

Well if you hate games so much maybe you shouldn't play them? Might relieve some stress... 

 

 

If I ever see you engage in a conversation and refrain from forming ludicrous assumptions about the person you're conversing with, I might faint. 

[Seraphim24]

If I ever see you engage in a conversation and refrain from forming ludicrous assumptions about the person you're conversing with, I might faint. 

 

Well I was kind of just being silly, if I ever see you engage in conversation and refrain from taking every statement hyper literally, I might just faint. 

 

I'm sure DeathRobot has some appreciation for those games otherwise likely would of never played them, and he is most certainly perfectly entitled to like and prefer DA's system, I was just making a slight joke at the nature of what seemed to be his extreme frustration of the systems. 

 

I apologize if he or anyone else was offended 

[Seraphim24]

You have dumb ideas about games and gamers, more specifically. I don't know about your larger point, because your larger points are typically inscrutable and weird.

 

Well, perhaps we've all been misunderstanding each other, maybe because I haven't given some background?

 

I really did grow up playing and enjoying the heck out of D&D specifically 2nd edition, I thought 3rd edition was a pretty big step back. I was also a big fan of many other hardcore CRPGs such as Everquest, Asheron's Call, countless other ones I might of forgotten texty/muddy things like Avalon or blah blah. 

 

Watching those evolve into the likes of Baldur's Gate/Dragon Age and such has been a mixed experience. On the one hand, I often like them fine to be honest. The behavior of people towards the makers of those games and such at times? Not so much.... 

 

From the perspective of a gamer I'd say all these things offer something fun a lot of the time, the problem has been most of this time this neverending fetish for discerning a "true RPG" or a hardcore game or whatever that kind of irrelevantly divides things. 

 

For what it's worth the people who have been the absolute least appreciative or understanding of RPGs or what makes them good has been in my experience the people that wear the mantle the hardest, whether they come from RPGCodex or these forums whatever some such place has generally evinced a total lack of appreciation and/or understanding of the genre IMHO. 

 

Such people often possess an unerring understanding of the business cycle and a lot of conventional media though, a pattern I can't help but think is sort of weird. 

 

But like that's just my opinion man and if people find that dumb so be it I suppose. If modern gaming has demonstrated anything it's that you don't need to make the "ultimate game," as long as it's sufficiently honest, credible, and interesting, you will probably sell quite well. 

 

And I'm sure we can all hopefully be civil and respectful towards each others differences in opinion, since if we don't get to suggest absurd and silly opinions on just silly gaming that no one would take seriously websites well I just don't feel like there is enough fun in the world as a consequence.                          

 

Thanks all. 

[Puddi III]

They need to go back to making games for the sake of making good games and stop worrying about how many copies of their games are going to sell.

 

Because that was a thing ever.

[Iakus]

Because that was a thing ever.

I prefer "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" to "There's a sucker born every minute"

[FKA_Servo]

Yeah - that was uncalled for on my part. Retracted.

[In Exile]

Really? It's a sideways perspective to point out the business cycle is simply an expression of extreme chaos and often violence that instead of continuing in physicals forms, manifest itself in more economic terms that continued on into the present? Or that the current present point in time is filled with profound economic and social chaos?

 

I don't understand what the underlined means. And the present point in time is an incredibly safe and prosperous period - at least for those of us in the West (and arguably even for people in most other countries). I wouldn't exactly trade my present life for the chance to be a serf in 1302 England. And frankly I'm not sure being a rich noble during that time would be better than even being destitute in e.g. England 2016. 

[AlanC9]

CDPR has yet to make a better RPG than Bioware, for one. The Witcher 3 might very well be one of the best games in the last 5 years or more, but it's still a bad RPG.

Are CDPR even trying to do that? My impression is that "is this a better RPG" is something that developers don't really think about.

[FKA_Servo]

Are CDPR even trying to do that? My impression is that "is this a better RPG" is something that developers don't really think about.

 

I don't think they are, necessarily. I think there are some here who might be confused about that, though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Using "Market approaches" is the stuff of all those businesses that got burned in the Great Depression and every other screwed up era in history that eventually culminated in like 500000 wars.

And also generated enormous wealth and innovation. Competition drives advancement.

The optimal rate of failure is not zero.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Are CDPR even trying to do that? My impression is that "is this a better RPG" is something that developers don't really think about.

Does it matter if they're trying to do it?

What matters is the results, not the intent. If they happened to make an amazing RPG, I would praise that, even if they'd been actively trying not to.

I see no benefit in judging them by their standards.

[Il Divo]

Are CDPR even trying to do that? My impression is that "is this a better RPG" is something that developers don't really think about.

 

Count me in the "they probably don't care" camp. Genres are great as a very basic quick guide to what you might enjoy - but that's about it. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Witcher did kicked Inquisition to the curve though, and DA:I is very boring to play anyways.

I quite enjoy playing DAI.

And while I have recently decided to give TW3 a shot, I expect I will find it fairly dull.

[RoboticWater]

Are CDPR even trying to do that? My impression is that "is this a better RPG" is something that developers don't really think about.

Especially since the definition of RPG generally means "the stuff that I like" on these forums.

 

Regardless, I think the point was that saying something like "Witcher 3 topples Inquisition," is pointless because these games have different design objectives. However, Inquisition and the Witcher do vie for the same audience, so the sentiment does carry some weight even if the precise usage of RPG isn't consistent with others'.

 

In my opinion though, DA:I just had more enjoyable combat, and Witcher's only significant advantage was its number of narrative sidequests. If BioWare ramps up the sidequest quality in the next game, then I'd imagine DA will will be just as appealing as the Witcher in the audience's eyes. In fact, DA's biggest problem now is just getting over the (somewhat unwarranted) hate circlejerk surrounding DA:I.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Count me in the "they probably don't care" camp. Genres are great as a very basic quick guide to what you might enjoy - but that's about it.

Lacking clear and precise definitions, they're not even good at that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I see a lack of an in-game documentation as a problem just like you see a lack of an out of game one a problem.

It's simply more convenient for me to find the information I want when it's in a digital format. It also becomes impossible to lose that information or not have it because you borrowed the game from a friend.

I don't like borrowing or sharing things. I'd rather have my own.

I maintain that in this case Baldur's Gate is the GM, not the player.

That's your choice.

It can be played either way, so neither one is the objectively right answer.

Being attacked at night is only really worrisome at low levels when you barely have any hit points. Most areas don't spawn mobs that are threatening to a party at level 3-4 and above. Especially if I'm resting for my casters while my Paladin and Fighter are still sitting at 80-90% HP, they aren't going to worry about a few low level mobs. Not even if I fight them multiple times.

My perception here might be shaded by my wizard-heavy parties. 4 mages with no spells, a thief who has run out of arrows, and a low HP Cleric don't handle surprises well.

I don't think BG did enough to help the problem it amplified in casters being broken.

It probably didn't. But in implementing an existing ruleset, I'm not going to blame them for not making up new features.

I'm still annoyed they got Command wrong (it's supposed to be no-save).

I refuse to make excuses for it, even though I'll maintain that it's still a very good game. You can talk about limitations but I've played through the game exploiting magic and it's broken in the game.

I don't dispute that it's broken. I just don't think that's a bad thing.

Magic was arguably broken in DAO, as well. But I liked it that way.

Every game needs to have some element of skill. It doesn't matter character or player, but it needs to have some element of skill.

But not every aspect of every game.

As it stands right now that system is neither a game nor a toy: It's gambling. I see that as a very bad design.

Skill affects the odds. It's like playing Craps. It's still a game of chance, but if you're making sucker bets that's your own fault.

You can still simulate unpredictable results without having the ability to be OHK at level 1 by a random crit. Plenty of other pen and paper games don't have that as a thing. I'm okay with luck being a factor. I'm not okay with luck being the only factor.

I do think symmetrical mechanics are really important, so if at level 1 you can OHK a level 1 bandit, then a level 1 bandit should be able to OHK you.

Also, since it's a party-based game, losing one character doesn't matter so much. I also think BioWare's modern games should allow death from gameplay.

Baldur's Gate really should have used the negative HP rule, or else make it an option for players to use.

Baldur's Gate did totally invent the getting chunked at -10 HP. That isn't anywhere in the tabletop rules. I can see why they did it (it allowed them to implement the limitations of the Raise Dead spell from the rules), but I'm not a fan.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't really think anyone praises Bioware for that either.

I do.

Though they're not as good at that as they once were. DAI is their only adequate recent attempt.

[FKA_Servo]

Especially since the definition of RPG generally means "the stuff that I like" on these forums.

 

Regardless, I think the point was that saying something like "Witcher 3 topples Inquisition," is pointless because these games have different design objectives. However, Inquisition and the Witcher do vie for the same audience, so the sentiment does carry some weight even if the precise usage of RPG isn't consistent with others'.

 

In my opinion though, DA:I just had more enjoyable combat, and Witcher's only significant advantage was its number of narrative sidequests. If BioWare ramps up the sidequest quality in the next game, then I'd imagine DA will will be just as appealing as the Witcher in the audience's eyes. In fact, DA's biggest problem now is just getting over the (somewhat unwarranted) hate circlejerk surrounding DA:I.

 

It's the most meaningless genre descriptor in the world. I think to some folks, it just means branching dialogue paths.

 

My own arbitrary criteria calls for a fairly robust character creator and a reasonably vaguely defined character background, at the very least. Otherwise, it's just a ride, albeit one that I can hopefully steer in a direction that's satisfying to me. Which is something I really enjoy, but I don't characterize it as RP.

 

For my part, I largely regard TW3 as the best possible spiritual successor to Red Dead Redemption that we could have hoped for - and I mean that as very high praise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well I was kind of just being silly, if I ever see you engage in conversation and refrain from taking every statement hyper literally, I might just faint.

You're the one who said "literally". Are we not supposed to interpret things literally when you literally label them as such?

[The Hierophant]

I don't even know wth is going on anymore.