206 réponses à ce sujet

[attackfighter]

It should be mentioned that 99% of DA:O mods are for new skins, enemies or items, like "nude Morrigan" skins and stuff. I haven't checked the DA nexus in awhile, but I'm sure there isn't or ever will be a well thought out dungeon with an actual purpose (plotwise) to it. I'd definately prefer the devs to spend more time custom making things, especially for this sort of game (user made content is really more suitable for sandbox games like Oblivion and Civilization).

Also to rebuke the contention that spells are easily spammed in Baldurs Gate through resting: resting can be a hassle since just under 50% of the time you'll be attacked during your sleep. Being attacked while resting is annoying and even deadly at low levels, so resting after every battle isn't a sound plan. What really happens is you'll spread out your spells over the course of a few battles, only using them all if you run into a boss or something.

EDIT: btw I just did a search and found that Baldurs Gate 1 had 419 quests. The problem with comparing quest #'s is that DA:O and Baldurs Gate 1 both have lots of short quests, where as most of BG2's quests are very long. I'd prefer 90 awesome quests like investigating the murders in Umberhill, then the 106 fed-ex quests DA:O throws at me ("duhhh could you go find me 10 potions of healing?")

Modifié par attackfighter, 21 février 2010 - 08:16 .

[IAN9786]

@Kats_RK, touche

[Taitas]

Something I liked about the BG series was that the choices you made in the game had a significant impact on the availability of which characters would join your party. Since there was no gift system in BG to butter up your companions, it was much easier to ****** them off and lose them (they'd leave or attack you). In DA you can just leave people at camp and/or use gifts to make them happy again. It's hard to appreciate the uniqueness each character brings to a party when you can mix and match any time you want. This was much harder to do in BG, since they stayed where you left them, and after playing with certain party members for a while you didn't really want to start switching them around. This lead to a lot more replay value since you could start a new game and focus on a completely different party composition and choices which resulted in a very different game. After the Origin Story, DA is pretty much the same game regardless of party configuration or class.

Given a choice as to which game I'd prefer to play the BG series wins hands down. NWN was also based on D&D and it was crap, so the argument that "DA is breaking new ground so you can't expect it to be great," doesn't wash. Bioware has had enough successful games (KOTOR and BG series) to know what works and what doesn't. Yet many elements which made those games great are lacking in DA. 

Also, the dragon battles in DA totally suck. They are buggy, uninteresting and require almost zero tactics, even on Nightmare, to win. In BG fighting and defeating a dragon was a major accomplishment. You felt like you had achieved the impossible afterwards (not to mention the loot was great), and that is a good feeling. I was just annoyed and disappointed with dragon battles in DA.

Modifié par Taitas, 21 février 2010 - 10:44 .

[AlanC9]

attackfighter wrote...
. I haven't checked the DA nexus in awhile, but I'm sure there isn't or ever will be a well thought out dungeon with an actual purpose (plotwise) to it.

Why would you think that? DA:O's toolset isn't harder to use than NWN2's and we got many user modules that were good -- several that were better than the OC, and a few that were tied with MotB.

Also to rebuke the contention that spells are easily spammed in Baldurs Gate through resting: resting can be a hassle since just under 50% of the time you'll be attacked during your sleep. Being attacked while resting is annoying and even deadly at low levels, so resting after every battle isn't a sound plan.

It's only at low levels that it's deadly, unless you've somehow managed to really screw things up. After that it's kind of boring, but easy enough to do. At least the Bio devs didn't botch this as much as ToEE; REs in the Temple dropped healing potions, so they recharged party resources.

[AlanC9]

Taitas wrote...
Since there was no gift system in BG to butter up your companions, it was much easier to ****** them off and lose them (they'd leave or attack you).

Easier? You can't be serious. It was simple to keep BG characters happy. All you had to do was manage your reputation score  -- and that absolutely was subject to being manipulated with cash if it got too low. About the only thing you'd have to watch out for is reputation going too high.

The other aspect was companions getting into fights, but IIRC the player can't do anything at all about that (except that he can keep Anomen from going CN in the first place).

Bioware has had enough successful games (KOTOR and BG series) to know what works and what doesn't. Yet many elements which made those games great are lacking in DA.

You apparently have a different view from Bioware as to what made those games great. And different from mine.

[Destrier77]

Why are the dragon battles buggy? I found it virtually impossible on ps3, well after about 4 goes and doing very little damage i thought it was time to play nice (battle with the witch dragon)

[Macadami]

Look....they designed DA:O to attract console players....they made mad cash with ME1 and now ME2 on the xbox, wanted to try a different but similar genre that might attract more or a lot of the same people who purchased the ME series.

If you mainly play console games, this game is amazing to you. If you're used to playing games on the PC, this game isn't that great. It's about money now, and that really is all.

Once upon a time Bioware was out to prove they could create great games over and over, games that redefined genre's and perfected gameplay. Well they have proven themselves in that reguard, and now (under guidance by EA i can only assume) they are going to prove what, how, and when to release DLC and expansions for maximum profits. BG2 was $50 for years of gameplay. DA:O is up to what? $115 and growing almost every month because they released a game designed for that formula. Start small, grow big.

Modifié par Macadami, 22 février 2010 - 12:58 .

[Realmzmaster]

It has always been about money. No one designs and sells a product with the intent of losing money. The difference it that consoles are now at the point where a game like DA:o can effectively run on them.

Also console gaming is big. Any company that ignores that market is shooting itself in the foot. If Bioware or any other company can bring its products to the consoles more power to them. It helps to expand the fan base. It encourages developers to make more crpgs if they can be successful across platforms.

If DA:O was limited to just the PC, how many copies do you think would have been sold? Would it be enough for EA/BioWare to continue development of crpgs for just one platform?

Like it or not, if you want to see more crpgs they have to attract more players.

A lot of players like to play on their consoles. I play on a PC, but I hear reality knocking.

[AlanC9]

If you're used to playing games on the PC, this game isn't that great.

I completely disagree with this. 

DA:O is up to what? $115 and growing almost every month because they released a game designed for that formula

How do you figure $115? $50 for DA:O itself, SP is free, WK $7, RtO $5. 

Also note that you have to adjust BG2's price for inflation. So that's $63 -- about the same as DA:O plus DLCs.

Sure, BG2 had more gameplay hours. But we already knew that.

[attackfighter]

Realmzmaster wrote...

It has always been about money. No one designs and sells a product with the intent of losing money. The difference it that consoles are now at the point where a game like DA:o can effectively run on them.
Also console gaming is big. Any company that ignores that market is shooting itself in the foot. If Bioware or any other company can bring its products to the consoles more power to them. It helps to expand the fan base. It encourages developers to make more crpgs if they can be successful across platforms.
If DA:O was limited to just the PC, how many copies do you think would have been sold? Would it be enough for EA/BioWare to continue development of crpgs for just one platform?
Like it or not, if you want to see more crpgs they have to attract more players.
A lot of players like to play on their consoles. I play on a PC, but I hear reality knocking.

Uh, no. Older games turned a profit and they had a smaller pool of consumers to sell to. There's no reason why CRPG's wouldn't still be viable, they just wouldn't have ridiculous budgets to blow on realism and tacky graphics. To prove my point, just take a look at Victoria, Europa Universalis and all the other niche Paradox Interactive games: they have worse graphics than Baldur's Gate 1, but they still make money.

By endorsing the "profit only" mentality of many current developers, you're pretty much saying you prefer these dumbed down, graphic whoring, soulless cash cows over the deep, lovingly made masterpieces of ages long forgotten.

[CybAnt1]

I go with the former, if you ask me. I have a feeling, that I will never see a community made module, which is as robust and well made, as a 200 hour long Bioware campaing.

Well, sure.... I always felt the same way about the user-made modules for NWN1/2 ... obviously fans being fans and not major software corporations, what a fan with his buddies can make will probably never match what a professional development team can, with actual budgets and resources. I played the user-made modules for NWN1/2 and some were OK... but never quite had the voice-acting, visuals, cutscenes, dialogue richness/interactions, etc. of the developer-made ones. Many people with NWN1/2 *never* played anything other than the various OCs ... I *tried* some of the other stuff at least ... tho as I said nothing out there was very SP-friendly until NWN2. 

I doubt you'll see a full "campaign" that's user-made ... for a while ... although the Kal-Sharok one is being worked one (but I don't know the ETA). I expect more things to be, at best, like Alley of Murders ... short "plug in" areas that add some stuff to the existing campaigns with a few new quests ... not unlike the "official" DlCs themselves. 

However, the Toolset is young, as young as the game itself (actually younger), give some time, what I think you WILL see in the future are new classes, new races, new items (heck they're making those already), new spells, new specializations, new companions, new monsters, all user-made ... that type of thing. I understand some are even working on making new ORIGINS besides the canonical six ... this is what I think you'll see. 

That, and the usual tweaks to mechanics or storyline ... like letting you romance everyone, skip sequences, improve AI, improve combat, archery, etc., etc. 

I think the main thing that needs to be done for the mod scene is force a consensus on an install tool (whether it be DAmodder or something else), and force everyone to write their mods for use with that install tool, insuring everything can be seamlessly uninstalled, and then have that tool force the compatibility problem check, i.e. "does this mod work properly," "does it play friendly with others," "does it include documentation on how it's used". This needs some "cleaning up" still. 

And yeah, I also liked the AD&D ruleset more than the new system. 

Which one? If you like the Vancian spell memorization of 2E (which was more or less kept for 3E), it's gone in 4E. The "official" (4E) rules for D & D now longer have it. That makes BG2 an archaism. 

I never liked the whole 2E system of "humans double-class, demi-humans multi-class" and there were very limited multi-classing options and no prestige classes. 3E improved much of this, and that got carried forward to 4E.

I would not mind seeing a 4E-based CRPG; it seems almost designed for crpg/mmo play by nature. 

Whether you like it or not, take a peek at the new 4E ruleset ... you'll see the mechanics for warriors and rogues and mages very similar to the system being used by DAO right now. 

Still, BG2 was much longer, because it had more places to go, and the world was bigger.

But if you think about it, did not have anywhere near the amount of "free exploration" area (i.e. places you could just go to fight, loot, grind, and do stuff not related to mainquests) as BG1 -- which was a complaint of some BG1 players, btw. 

[CybAnt1]

It should be mentioned that 99% of DA:O mods are for new skins, enemies or items, like "nude Morrigan" skins and stuff. 

The Toolset and the game are only 5 months old. (Actually, like I said, IIRC, the Toolset is younger). 

Yes there are a lot of cosmetic mods. Frankly, It's not my thing. I don't pay much attention to the look of things, I'm much more focused on what they do. But hey, why not, yes there are plenty of people making better looking helmets, armor, weapons, that makes the game better for many, again, why not? 

I'm already using/have used mods that let me use Dog as a pseudo-5th companion, add a new school of magic to the game (Evocation -- summoning), add a new class (cleric), add custom items (including the gear for arcane warriors and rogues everyone's been begging for), add stamina potions (!), change the archery mechanics, change what items can take runes, let you respec characters, ... etc., etc. There are a few that add new areas (though 90% of those are battle arenas or user-made alternatives to the warden's keep, complete with sexy servants) Plus I haven't tried, but at least peeked at with curiosity, the ones that improve tactics (I'm likely to try that next), completely revamp shapeshifting (with a bunch of new forms), let you romance anyone/everyone "polyamory", etc., etc. 

My only complaint is unfortunately something needs to be done to make all these mods work together, and some could use a bit more testing to make sure they work. That Dog mod has caused some weird problems. (Or maybe it in conjunction with something else.) Fortunately, DAmodder will uninstall anything you install. It works better with mods written to work with it, but will still uninstall them if they don't. 

[AlanC9]

attackfighter wrote...
To prove my point, just take a look at Victoria, Europa Universalis and all the other niche Paradox Interactive games: they have worse graphics than Baldur's Gate 1, but they still make money.

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is. Paradox went to 3D with EU3/HoI3. The funny thing is the devs don't really believe in it; they've said they only did it so they could get the games shelved.

[maxernst]

Also, strategy games are a different animal than RPG's and the benefits of 3-D are minimal. A true three-dimensional view of any Paradox Game would be almost indistinguishable from a 2-D view unless you were pulled back far enough to see the earth's curvature. You're view is never close enough for mountains to have much visual effect in their games or to actually see armies or buildings--they're presentation in the game is completely abstract. Even though they have, in fact, gone to 3-D now, there's really no benefit to 3-D in grand strategy games. Whereas there is much to be said in an RPG for being able to see character's facial expressions and details.

Maybe it would be possible for someone to make money on 2-D games, but there'd be no way they'd look as good as BG1 on the kinds of budgets Paradox runs. Especially given the screen resolutions people play at these days, it would not be cheap to do the artwork for a quality 2-D game. I just pulled the manual for Fallout 2 off my shelf and found a list of over twenty artists in the credits. Crusader Kings had four and one of them was for cover art.  And as Alan has pointed out even Paradox has gone 3-D now.

Modifié par maxernst, 23 février 2010 - 05:23 .

[attackfighter]

AlanC9 wrote...

attackfighter wrote...
To prove my point, just take a look at Victoria, Europa Universalis and all the other niche Paradox Interactive games: they have worse graphics than Baldur's Gate 1, but they still make money.

I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is. Paradox went to 3D with EU3/HoI3. The funny thing is the devs don't really believe in it; they've said they only did it so they could get the games shelved.

They whipped up a few optional 3D models so stores would carry the games, like you said you're missing my point entirely.

[AlanC9]

attackfighter wrote...

They whipped up a few optional 3D models so stores would carry the games, like you said you're missing my point entirely.

Maybe, but since you don't know what you're talking about I don't feel so bad about that. Paradox didn't just whip up some 3D models, they completely rewrote the way the games display everything. Take a look at the EU3 demo and compare it to EU2.

[Cadarin]

Outside of the maps, there isn't anything in the first post that I agree with. I'd leave it at that, except I really take issue with one point.
Anyone who thinks that Minsc was a better developed character than Morrigan is completely incapable of reading between the lines. She is only a sociopath on the surface, while Minsc was a half-retarded barbarian through-and-through.
That is all.

edit: And I know he was technically a ranger.  It doesn't change anything.

Modifié par Cadarin, 23 février 2010 - 05:48 .

[AlanC9]

maxernst wrote... Even though they have, in fact, gone to 3-D now, there's really no benefit to 3-D in grand strategy games.

Exactly so --- and Paradox knows there's no benefit. I think Johan actually said he'd have never bothered,  butthey couldn't get a 2D game shelved, and even if they could the gaming press would just mock it anyway for being hopelessly obsolete. 

You can pick who to blame. The gaming mags? The stores? Gamers themselves?

[attackfighter]

maxernst wrote...

Also, strategy games are a different animal than RPG's and the benefits of 3-D are minimal. A true three-dimensional view of any Paradox Game would be almost indistinguishable from a 2-D view unless you were pulled back far enough to see the earth's curvature. You're view is never close enough for mountains to have much visual effect in their games or to actually see armies or buildings--they're presentation in the game is completely abstract. Even though they have, in fact, gone to 3-D now, there's really no benefit to 3-D in grand strategy games. Whereas there is much to be said in an RPG for being able to see character's facial expressions and details.

Maybe it would be possible for someone to make money on 2-D games, but there'd be no way they'd look as good as BG1 on the kinds of budgets Paradox runs. Especially given the screen resolutions people play at these days, it would not be cheap to do the artwork for a quality 2-D game. I just pulled the manual for Fallout 2 off my shelf and found a list of over twenty artists in the credits. Crusader Kings had four and one of them was for cover art.  And as Alan has pointed out even Paradox has gone 3-D now.

CRPG's don't need facial expressions, that's what I was getting at when I mentioned "realism and tacky graphics". What is essential in a CRPG is to convey a sense of D&D-like adventure - good technical graphics are not necessary for that, in fact they're detrimental. These new breeds of RPG like DA:O and Oblivion are not what I would call CRPGs (a term that was originally invented to serve as a beacon for the pen and paper gamers that early RPG's were marketed towards); they do not grasp what made Baldurs Gate and other old series special, instead they focus on graphics, sandbox exploration and truckloads of pulp dialogue (this focus on dialogue was originally a kneejerk reaction towards Oblivions voice acting btw - not some sort of homage to past games). CRPG's are dead, and what killed them was companies like Bioware and Bethesda commercializing them and totally forsaking the small but numerous and coherant componants that made them fun. I'd rather not have any RPG's then to have all this shovelware crap from Bioware and Bethesda diluting the market and stealing resources from LIVING genres such as FPS's.

Now feel free to disagree with my above statement, but I'll even present example another example as to how 'low graphic', isometric RPG's can still be viable. Diablo 3: it has horrible graphics but it's certain to sell millions. I'd agree if you were to call it a hack 'n slash adventure, however it could just as easily be a proper CRPG similar to Baldurs Gate. I will not argue with you over whether or not a true 2D isometric game could be viable, as I have no evidence to suggest that it would be and while you bring up a good point about the cost of hiring artists, you cannot prove that it would sell less now then it would've 10 years ago (I contend that the markets growth is as much a boon as the declining percentage of people willing to buy a 2D game is a bane).

[attackfighter]

AlanC9 wrote...

attackfighter wrote...

They whipped up a few optional 3D models so stores would carry the games, like you said you're missing my point entirely.

Maybe, but since you don't know what you're talking about I don't feel so bad about that. Paradox didn't just whip up some 3D models, they completely rewrote the way the games display everything. Take a look at the EU3 demo and compare it to EU2.

I'm not going to play the demo, but I doubt it's change took long to implement or had a serious effect on gameplay.

[attackfighter]

Cadarin wrote...

Outside of the maps, there isn't anything in the first post that I agree with. I'd leave it at that, except I really take issue with one point.
Anyone who thinks that Minsc was a better developed character than Morrigan is completely incapable of reading between the lines. She is only a sociopath on the surface, while Minsc was a half-retarded barbarian through-and-through.
That is all.

edit: And I know he was technically a ranger.  It doesn't change anything.

Actually it is you who is incapable of reading between the lines. Read this whole thread, another poster went into a detailed talk about how there's more to Minsc then meets the eyes.

Also,being more detailed doesn't make Morrigan better; after all, writers aren't judged by the volume of their work.

Modifié par attackfighter, 23 février 2010 - 06:23 .

[Aldandil]

attackfighter wrote...
What is essential in a CRPG is to convey a sense of D&D-like adventure

This, the foundation for your argument, is necessarily true. Yes, it is.

[maxernst]

attackfighter wrote...

[
CRPG's don't need facial expressions, that's what I was getting at when I mentioned "realism and tacky graphics". What is essential in a CRPG is to convey a sense of D&D-like adventure - good technical graphics are not necessary for that, in fact they're detrimental. These new breeds of RPG like DA:O and Oblivion are not what I would call CRPGs (a term that was originally invented to serve as a beacon for the pen and paper gamers that early RPG's were marketed towards); they do not grasp what made Baldurs Gate and other old series special, instead they focus on graphics, sandbox exploration and truckloads of pulp dialogue (this focus on dialogue was originally a kneejerk reaction towards Oblivions voice acting btw - not some sort of homage to past games).

I notice that you completely ignored the economic argument.  Baldur's Gate was not a cheap game to make in 1998 and it wouldn't be any cheaper to make now.  The idea that 2-D graphics are really cheap to do is specious, unless you want games that look like Ultima IV.  And judging by how much time you spent talking about the lovingly detailed 2-D environments in Baldur's Gate, it sounds to me like you still want your pretty graphics.  The idea that Bioware sold out is ludicrous.  Bioware was a mass-market game company from day 1.  The reason they made the first games in 2-D was not because it was cheaper (I've actually heard gaming companies claim 3D is cheaper), but because the technology available at the time was not capable of handling a squad-based game in 3-D. 

First of all, no single-player game has ever remotely conveyed a sense of D&D-like adventure.  Even the MMORPG's can't--you need a live GM for that; there is absolutely no substitute.  And speaking as somebody who was playing D&D before 1st edition AD&D, it sounds like by "D&D-like" adventure", you mean the sort of game I played until I was about 16-years old...and got bored of.  A series of one combat after another, loosely connected by a plot.  Afer that we began to explore other game systems, other settings, and focus more on political intrigue and other social interactions...by the time I was 18 or 19, a typical four-hour gaming session would rarely have more than one combat, and sometimes had none at all.   

What I want from a CRPG is a game that allows me to feel like I'm really in another world--and that world is a real place, which may (or may not) have magic, but is internally consistent and logical, and in which people behave like people.  Graphics DO assist in this.  D&D rules don't--the alignment rules are particularly unhelpful. 

I find it laughable that you think the AD&D system is more customizable than DA:O.  On another thread you complained about the difficulty of running a rogue archer  Well, you couldn't have that character in BG2 either.  First of all, no thief will ever be that great an archer--a 7th level fighter with no dexterity bonus is as good an archer as a 7th level thief with 19 dexterity.  You can equip him with a bow (actually I'm not sure you can, thieves couldn't use bows in 1st edition, but I think they could in BG2) if you want, but he's not a specialist .  And if he's not going to use his backstab, he's just a poor fighter armed with a bow.  A fighter is a fighter in D&D, equipment and attributes are the only choices you make.  Try running a party of non-spell users in BG--you'll die of boredom because there's nothing much for you to do.  Tthe height of strategy is to put your best melee fighters in the front and have archers in behind and just let them do their thing. 

[Matshelge]

Ancient games are much like ancient porn.

Some people claim that that was the highpoint of erotic entertainment, but the rest of us know this is pure bull, and going back is like trying to wack of to the Sears catalogue.

I like to call these old porn game lovers Grognards, while not used much in the CRPG, I think we (the people who understand that a 20 year old games really is not THAT good) should start to use this term more often.

So next time you hear "why don't they make games like Fallout 1 anymore?", "Planescape is 10 times the game DA:O is!" or "After Pac Man, gaming went down the drain", the first thing to pop into your head should be Grognard.