Last edited by Wizardry; 11-04-2012 at 10:53 PM.
But it's three steps below the combat in The Dark House of the Skeleton Lord of Evil Naysayers, right?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
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.
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; 11-04-2012 at 11:40 PM.
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; 11-04-2012 at 11:56 PM.
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.
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.
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 03:57 PM.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
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.
Are you an alt account?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.
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.
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?was all flashy instead of functional and completely destroyed the rather clever combat system of The Witcher, instead becoming SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH SLASH.
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".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."
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.Between that and their ME3 ending,