Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 336
  1. #241
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    No idea what you're on about. The rythmn-based attack system of TW1 worked brilliantly, in my opinion.
    That's one step above Akalabeth's combat.

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    *snip*
    Sensible post, JG. It's quite a complex matter. Of course it's to do with someone's taste, but it's also surely to do with someone's experience. If someone plays a single video game then surely they may rate it highly even if it's crap. That probably ties in to people having fond memories of crap games because they played them at an impressionable age. It ties into my thoughts on Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII as games that are widely popular and well regarded mostly by people who played them in their early teenage years.
    Last edited by Wizardry; 11-04-2012 at 11:53 PM.

  2. #242
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Althea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,457
    But it's three steps below the combat in The Dark House of the Skeleton Lord of Evil Naysayers, right?


  3. #243
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    But it's three steps below the combat in The Dark House of the Skeleton Lord of Evil Naysayers, right?
    Actually, come to think of it, it's probably a step below Akalabeth's combat. It's real-time.

  4. #244
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus The JG Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    The thing is, these days I'd normally rather play a game which did one interesting and new thing really well, with the rest of it being mediocre, than play just another 8/10 all-over rinse-and-repeat game.
    DA:O was great, so were the BG games, but honestly I can live with only have one of those every five years or so. If DA:2 had been another 80-hour Bioware-by-numbers save-the-world epic I'd have burned out half way though.
    I agree with you for the most part. I think that 80 hour titles are daunting. That's not to say unwanted by me and especially by others, but there's such a wealth of great titles to play, it's hard to stick to 80 hours of one when you can get the same from four. It's a bizarre logic, but I think that's just the completionist in me. At the same time, I understand what you're saying with accepting mediocre everything else (which felt like a summation of Mirror's Edge, really!) but I want that mediocrity to be polished. DA2 sadly lacked that polish in its simple things - I'd say even uncreative assets are more interesting than the same one over and over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    It ties into my thoughts on Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII as games that are widely popular and well regarded mostly by people who played them in their early teenage years.
    Well, more and more games are being sold to us as an 'experience', right? You're definitely right and I know my experience of DA2 will be strictly limited; I played it once and didn't want to play it again because the things I didn't like were prohibitive knowing that they were there. Like knowing the feeling of a needle in an injection. Perhaps that's quite an apt analogy for many people regarding this game! I got my money's and entertainment's worth from it though, so for that I'm happy enough.

    I look back at the Final Fantasy series now, those of which I played at any rate (7 to X-2) and I don't regret playing them, but I have a lot of flaws with them as games and with their narratives. Yet, at the time playing 7, "Crap! This is amazing!" I'd like to think though that I'm mature enough to reflect back on the things I enjoyed then and whether or not they would truly work for me now. It's obviously been some time, about a decade, but the amount of grinding, silly obscure things you had to do etc. didn't make it a good game, so much as extend its game-time. Then I didn't know better. Of course, it works both ways too - I still play the classic Sonic games, I've got into Pokémon Black on my DS and come May, I'll be introducing one of my friends to Ocarina of Time on the N64. Good games may definitely be improved upon, but great games are still playable. DA2, for me, was a good game, but I've no doubt that in what, 15 years, very few people will be talking about playing it.

    And if they are, then I have no desire to find out what the industry will be like then.
    Powered by Steam. And biscuits. I'm also a twit and dabble in creative writing.

  5. #245
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    If someone plays a single video game then surely they may rate it highly even if it's crap. That probably ties in to people having fond memories of crap games because they played them at an impressionable age. It ties into my thoughts on Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII as games that are widely popular and well regarded mostly by people who played them in their early teenage years.
    There was an interesting exchange between Leigh Alexander and someone else where they swapped adolescent faourites neither had played before. Worth finding.

    The thing is, there's a place for juvenilia; just like we might look back fondly at bands we loved as adolescents, even if we realise now that the reason we loved them was because they produced adolescent nonsense. The problem is when people are in their 30s and -still- love the gaming equivalent of Boyzone...

    Which makes me wonder what happens when bloody Bethesda games are held up as pinnacles of RPG with their hollow worlds and shallow mechanics by today's teenagers.
    Quote Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
    KING GEORGE IS A FROG
    le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
    OFF
    NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
    KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
    TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
    UNDERSTANDTHISANDFUCKOFFPIRATEBAY.TIMEDOESNTEXSIST FORMEASIMPATEKPHILLPE.
    BANG

  6. #246
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooper View Post
    Which makes me wonder what happens when bloody Bethesda games are held up as pinnacles of RPG with their hollow worlds and shallow mechanics by today's teenagers.
    And, oddly enough, by people like the CRPG Addict, who played CRPGs in the 80s and has played every single CRPG released for DOS up to 1989 (so far). It's not just teenagers who love games like Skyrim, even "veterans" do too. It's totally subjective and it depends on what people were looking for in the old "classics". Some people played those games because they happened to be the closest games at that time to Oblivion and Skyrim (virtual fantasy worlds). Ultima V in 1988 was the closest game at that time to Skyrim, and also the closest game at that time to Dragon Age II. But then you've got people like me who played CRPGs in the 80s but wanted the genre to eventually become something it didn't. Therefore to me games like Dragon Age II and Skyrim are shit.

  7. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    This is why half the stuff you do in a pen and paper RPG is up to the DM to make a ruling on. He/she may use your strength score, your dexterity score, perhaps with a dice modifier, or perhaps he/she will just make a decision on the spot without any statistics or dice coming into play. You can't cover rules about everything in a pen and paper RPG because the entire purpose of a pen and paper RPG is to come up with your own solutions to problems, often thinking outside the box that is the rulebooks. And furthermore, if it were possible to have rules for everything, how would one expect the players to remember all the rules? The players would be constantly flicking through an infinitely large rulebook for every action, making the game infinitely slow, making each round infinitely long and therefore you wouldn't have a game any more.

    But when you've got a single player video game adaptation which is based entirely on rules, there is no DM. The player can only do the things put into the game. In other words, the options are limited. So when the player can only do a small set of actions explicitly put inside a product by the developers, they must all have rules governing them. But when you have rules between characters and the environment (including other characters) that don't use the statistics of the characters within those rules, you've basically got another genre for portions of the game.
    Says whom? There's no rule that says every action and decision has to be derived from a character stat. You direct the characters and utilize their skills. You're the one driving the decisions. You're making claim to rules for cRPGs that have no basis in reality. Sure you can add in aspects that shade the level of the word a character might perceive such as intelligence relating to speech options, but there is never a necessity to have stats like that in the first place. Constraints can be devised in many different ways.

    Also I think after I've finished The Witcher 2 enhanced edition I think it's time to revisit DAII and get the DLC packs for it. Despite the disappointing ending of ME3 I must admit I thought the DAIII team gave a good talk. They are a different team from the ME lot, and their writers have been on for the duration, plus they seem well aware of what they need to do to redress the problems of DAII.
    Last edited by Kadayi; 12-04-2012 at 12:40 AM.

  8. #248
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    Says whom? There's no rule that says every action and decision has to be derived from a character stat. You direct the characters and utilize their skills. You're the one driving the decisions. You're making claim to rules for cRPGs that have no basis in reality. Sure you can add in aspects that shade the level of the word a character might perceive such as intelligence relating to speech options, but there is never a necessity to have stats like that in the first place. Constraints can be devised in many different ways.
    Because all interactions between a character and an environment is based on things that define that character. You can pretend that those things don't matter and treat every single character the same, but the further you go with this the less of an RPG a game is, with the ultimate extreme being a game where the statistics of your character has no effect at all on anything.

    I mean, take a CRPG where statistics only matter in combat. Now imagine if that game is 80% non-combat. That 80% is in another genre, usually interactive fiction or adventure game, and sometimes even platforming (fuck you Ultima VIII). But its the trend that's more worrying, because even in Wizardry you probably spend a decent portion of the time outside of combat. The trend is to maximise things like conversations and general non-combat activity while reducing the statistics (or at least watering them down). It's really both of these combined that's the most disappointing.
    Last edited by Wizardry; 12-04-2012 at 12:56 AM.

  9. #249
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    Do you know why there aren't any rules in D&D for, say, mowing a lawn?
    That's called GURPS.

    Quote Originally Posted by The JG Man View Post
    but it does beg some questions
    My brain tried to do a flip in my skull when I read that.

    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    Huh? Anders is the flashpoint for the entirety of the third act. Isabella for the second. The fate of your sibling in the first tees up Hawke's actions for the entire game.
    Yes, but from a company that made me care about someone I didn't even like in Mass Effect 1 because I caused their death, the William Shatner level hamfisted-ness that went into the "we make you care about dis death 5ever lol" was disappointing. The pacing, introductions, character development were just all wrong.

    There's a reason I praise the different character intros in Dragon Age 1 and complain that Dragon Age 2 didn't even have an intro to the tune of even just ONE. Hell, what if you didn't play Dragon Age 1? You're gonna be confused about everything in the world, and someone that's capable of fighting Darkspawn in droves isn't going to be a fish out of water. Because they're competent.

  10. #250
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus The JG Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantoon View Post
    My brain tried to do a flip in my skull when I read that.
    What in particular? My point was in discerning objectionable quality and that there are a lot of variables that makes it hard to determine, hence going onto the discussion of actual experience of a game.
    Powered by Steam. And biscuits. I'm also a twit and dabble in creative writing.

  11. #251
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    126
    I was being pedantic. "Begs the question" doesn't mean "a question begging to be asked".

    It's a lot more like assuming a foregone conclusion.

  12. #252
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Phantoon View Post
    There's a reason I praise the different character intros in Dragon Age 1 and complain that Dragon Age 2 didn't even have an intro to the tune of even just ONE. Hell, what if you didn't play Dragon Age 1? You're gonna be confused about everything in the world, and someone that's capable of fighting Darkspawn in droves isn't going to be a fish out of water. Because they're competent.
    Because no good story has ever been started in media res right?

  13. #253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    Because all interactions between a character and an environment is based on things that define that character. You can pretend that those things don't matter and treat every single character the same, but the further you go with this the less of an RPG a game is, with the ultimate extreme being a game where the statistics of your character has no effect at all on anything.
    Your inability to acknowledge the reality of what Gygax meant as well as a binary way of thinking that completely fails to understand the whole nuance of 'play' never fails to amuse. The whole point about games is that two people can play a happy go lucky barbarian or a wily magician and have completely different experiences, through player choice.

  14. #254
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    Your inability to acknowledge the reality of what Gygax meant as well as a binary way of thinking that completely fails to understand the whole nuance of 'play' never fails to amuse. The whole point about games is that two people can play a happy go lucky barbarian or a wily magician and have completely different experiences, through player choice.
    Yes, because the game's rules treats the two things differently. I'm not really sure what your point is.
    Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.

  15. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanH View Post
    Yes, because the game's rules treats the two things differently. I'm not really sure what your point is.
    The whole point about games is that two people can play a happy go lucky barbarian or a wily magician and have completely different experiences, through player choice.

  16. #256
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    The whole point about games is that two people can play a happy go lucky barbarian or a wily magician and have completely different experiences, through player choice.
    I doubt anyone would dispute this, I just don't see what it has to do with the debate about rules. The player makes some choices about the definition of his character, and this is enforced by the GM through some form of rules. Usually these are based on class templates and character statistics, but they could be through very light rules such as "what the GM decides". I suppose you could have no enforcement, so the player could suddenly decide his barbarian was a wily sorceror too, but I don't think that's a good idea and might be tempted not to call that an RPG any more.

    Of course, for cRPGs, we don't have access to a real-time GM so most of the interactions are going to be rules-based, or they're going to treat each character the same. There might be some role in video games for a much looser system where the player is given some GM authority, but I suspect that would not work very well either.

    I'm not seeking to be aggressive, I just genuinly don't understand what your overall argument is.
    Last edited by NathanH; 12-04-2012 at 04:57 PM.
    Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.

  17. #257
    Network Hub Namdrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadayi View Post
    Your inability to acknowledge the reality of what Gygax meant as well as a binary way of thinking that completely fails to understand the whole nuance of 'play' never fails to amuse. The whole point about games is that two people can play a happy go lucky barbarian or a wily magician and have completely different experiences, through player choice.
    How do you even know that he said it, let alone what he meant? Apparently it was seconhand, having originated in a sidebar in a magazine sidebar by some author. http://www.allenvarney.com/rev_04a.html (very bottom of page).

    Regardless of whoever said it, we can still look at the statement. The author was using it in an article about a diceless roleplaying game called Amber that nonetheless still had rules, stats, and a method of conflict resolution along with the admonition that the GM could change anything that negatively affected the story (a rule that allows rule breaking). But that last one is a common feature of pnpRPGs, diceless or not; it doesnt mean that there are no rules, only that they need not be applied uniformly in every situation. But to have a game like that requires an adaptive intelligence that can change and alter things depending on what the players do. A computer game that did that would require some form of AI and that isnt happening any time soon.

    So I cannot see how the statement would be applicable to computer games given the lack of real AI that can adjust things on the fly. Nor does it contradict the necessity for number based rules in an rpg.

  18. #258
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanH View Post
    I'm not seeking to be aggressive, I just genuinely don't understand what your overall argument is.
    I guess it requires a familiarity with Wizardry's mindset.

    So I cannot see how the statement would be applicable to computer games given the lack of real AI that can adjust things on the fly. Nor does it contradict the necessity for number based rules in an rpg.
    Are you an alt account?

  19. #259
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    2. Merrill is fucking awesome.
    3. Personal relationships have certainly done a large part to improve DA2, and it feels less like clicking through hours of dialogue and more like actual conversation.
    2. Every time Merrill came on the screen, it was like listening to nails scraping on a blackboard. And I used to think that JRPG characters were annoying.
    3. But your relationship with the characters has no significance in the game, it doesn't effect how the plot unfolds nor on how it ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Althea View Post
    It also released without any particularly well-made introduction
    In case you're talking about the brief snippets that explain how Geralt ended up in a BDSM dungeon, just because it was a bit different doesn't mean it wasn't well-made. This flashback trope may have become cliche in movies but it felt alright in the game.

    was all flashy instead of functional and completely destroyed the rather clever combat system of The Witcher, instead becoming SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH.
    I haven't played the game past the prologue, but until that point it did feel as how you describe it to be. Less functional is what manner, though?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    I've stated before that there's a lot of truth to the idea that we get the games we demand. If things seem samey and trite and repetitive to you, that's because that's what you want.
    No, it's the publisher who decides what the majority wants.

    the message I think Bioware are getting from their fans are "don't you ever try anything new, because we will punish you. We will punish you and we have no boundaries to how far we go."
    Doesn't this contradict with what you said earlier? Anyway, I think it's more along the fans are more along the lines of "Don't fuck with what isn't broken just to snag the COD audience".

    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    And then they got shat upon for trying, 'cause the prevailing opinion then became "OMG IT'S CRAP IT HAS NO PLOT"
    You know there were more reasons than that.

    Between that and their ME3 ending,
    Though I don't have a high opinion of the ME series as a whole but the ending takes the cake for being the most idiotic, plot-hole filled section of the trilogy. They deserved all the flak they got for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drinking with Skeletons View Post
    Not to mention the fact that The Witcher 2 didn't do much to acknowledge any of the player's choices from The Witcher. You could romance an entirely different woman (Shani or something), but regardless of what happens Geralt will be sleeping with Triss. It didn't do any more or less than what was in Mass Effect or DA (in that regard), but everyone always neglects to mention that, from the first to the second game, your choices aren't unusually forceful.
    Since when did that become a requirement for rpg sequels? Anyway, the game already has too many branching plot-lines to be able to accommodate even more divisions. Also, let's not make this a DA vs The Witcher thread.

  20. #260
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus The JG Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane View Post
    But your relationship with the characters has no significance in the game, it doesn't effect how the plot unfolds nor on how it ends.
    Your relationship with Isabella has some impact at the end of Act 2 and if she remains as one of your party.
    Powered by Steam. And biscuits. I'm also a twit and dabble in creative writing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •