Lonesome_Raod
Member
I really can't wait for this game. I'm getting it on the 360. I'll be playing the game at the Eurogamer Expo on the 28th so I will post some impressions.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Dragon Age: Origins Screenshots And Trailer
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Dark Stalkers
Member
I heard you can unlock surfing Legolas if you beat the Dalish Elf origin story on the hardest difficulty.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17969186&postcount=521TheFallen said:
And some impressions by Aaron:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17975135&postcount=549
Mr. Durden
Banned
I will buy this game to get the Mass Effect 2 armor!
and the game itself looks kinda fun as well
Yeah, it's awkward and clunky, especially the equip screen, though I don't imagine you'll be using that too often. It was clearly made for a mouse. Switching skills was easy enough though. Maybe a little worse than Mass Effect overall, but much better than other PC ports like Two Worlds. Also what I played at E3 might not be the final version.TheFallen said:
A Black Falcon
Member
Gorgon said:
Already written about half of it, sorry.
(... and now finished the thing.) I've got other stuff I should be writing too... but I can't resist doing this instead.Gorgon said:
They're not wrong. I'll say more on that later in the post.
Console RPGs are "orders of magnitude" harder, huh? Sure you may have played a lot of PC RPGs, but with that you again expose your very strong bias against them... well, that and we disagree on what difficulty means.
... But I already said that I've spent a lot of time with Etrian Odyssey (max levels for my whole main party), and think that it's not as deep and complex as most modern PC RPGs. You're using a far, far too broad brush here, what you are saying is not true. I don't even need to prove "and PC games are deeper" to prove that, I would just need to show that they are even... I think that PC games are deeper, but I am sure that they are at least even. You're saying "play the deeper niche titles and you'll see that JRPGs are deep", but I'm saying "but those are niche titles not representative of the genre as a whole", I think. There are only fewer deep PC RPGs because there are fewer PC RPGs, really. I've played some of the more mainstream JRPGs, as I've said, and they definitely don't have the depth of PC RPGs. Oh, there's often depth in some subsystems or something, but in my opinion at least that is no replacement for the depth of a PC RPG... though admittedly I'm not sure if that's opinion or objective fact.
But anyway, making an RPG harder by limiting saving is not good design. Going through a whole dungeon, dying at the bottom, and then being sent back to restart the whole thing because there are no checkpoints or saving is NOT good game design, it is bad game design. You should be able to save when you want, it may make the game "easier" but it also makes it better, and it doesn't make it less complex in any important way.Either way on that issue, you do make some clear mistakes there in equating better save systems with lesser difficulty. That comparison is utterly wrong. As I said in my last post, I think that every RPG should have save anywhere, with no exceptions. It would make them all better. Remember, saving is OPTIONAL. Having a better save system does not mean that you need to USE it! This is really a huge mistake people make, thinking "because it's there I must use it"... like with continues in console ports of arcade games. "The game has infinite continues, so it's too easy!". No, you just have no willpower to try to beat it without using lots of continues. Those two things are totally different! So no, you are absolutely wrong. Save anywhere just makes the game in question better, and does nothing whatsoever negative. A 'you can't save in battle' restriction like BG uses is reasonable, but beyond that, no.
Anyway, if you could beat the BG series without dying much, you must be quite good at them... because they're not easy games. Not incredibly hard or something, but not easy, and by ToB things get quite hard, particularly if you install David Gaider's optional 'harder bosses' mods! The modded dragon bosses are incredibly challenging. (Remember, BGII should be played at Core Rules.) Elder Scrolls games, though, should't count. Action combat there, of course it's different. They need to be compared to other games with action-style, or FPS-style, combat. NWN... haven't played the first one, but it wasn't that great. One character only, of course it's lacking depth. The second is much, MUCH better, a much more traditional RPG... it's not super hard, because of things like autorez, but farther in there are times you can die for sure if you mess up.
But also, as I and other people have said, difficulty and depth are not the same. Being deeper does not always make a game harder. Planescape: Torment, my favorite RPG ever, is an extremely deep and complex game in a lot of ways, but the combat is easy. By your writing here, it wouldn't "count" as complex or something because it's easy. Of course if a game is complex but really easy the complexities can be lost, as I said happened in the Grandia games in my experience, but that is most definitely not always the case, as Torment shows. Difficulty and complexity need to be considered as completely separate issues, because they are. You're still mixing them in ways they shouldn't be.
Another aspect of complexity is something that everyone agrees Western RPGs do better, having moral issues and alternate paths. I don't think I need to explain how JRPGs are usually linear and "you do the right thing" while Western ones now generally let you do different things, have multiple paths, and have some kind of morality systems. It makes them deeper, more interesting games in ways entirely unrelated to combat -- and as saying Torment is my favorite RPG ever shows, I think that there are a lot of ways RPGs can be great without focusing on combat at all! As I said with my complaint about Etrian Odyssey, I think that script and puzzles and such are important. I was really pleasantly surprised to see "dungeon-crawler" Icewind Dale II to have such a solid plot and so many really interesting puzzles, for instance. It is still a dungeon crawler for sure, but a more varied and interesting one.
No, not really. Wizardry 8 did fine back when it came out, I think, Sir-Tech went down for other reasons. And remember that they also did strategy games such as Jagged Alliance, a genre most certainly popular on PCs, and those games also seemed popular. I don't know why they went out of business actually...
But anyway, sure on the whole you are of course right that dungeon crawlers lost popularity in the West. But where you connect that to "hardcore RPG crowd" I have no idea, because by the '90s, the most complex PC RPGs were most certainly not dungeon crawlers! I mean, sure there were Wizardry 8 and Wizards & Warriors, but after Fallout and then Baldur's Gate particularly, that kind of RPG became the leading hardcore RPG style. That is where it remains.
... Unless you mean things like how Roguelikes are still made as major retail titles in Japan, while in the US it's just a freeware graphics-minimal (or ASCII-art) PC game thing. That connects as much to the whole 'Japanese RPGs are more old-fashioned than PC RPGs are on average' thing though as anything though, there are plenty of hard PC RPGs out there, just of newer styles (not Rogue hard, but many Japanese Roguelikes aren't Rogue hard either, though some are). Though admittedly in recent years action-combat stuff has become more and more popular in Western RPGs, there are plenty of Japanese action-RPGs too, so it's not like there is no comparison at all there. Really though, I think that most PC RPG fans just think that stuff like D&D games (BG, Greyhawk: Temple of Elemental Evil, NWN2, etc) have more than enough depth and challenge. They're right, in my opinion.
You keep mentioning the Megaten magic system as your example of the depth of JRPGs. But as I've said a bunch now, that's one semi-niche series, while most JRPGs have nowhere near that kind of depth... having some examples of ones with some kind of depth (not the kind PC RPGs have but something else) is nice, but it does nothing to disprove the idea that on average JRPGs are simpler than WRPGs. Shin Megami Tensei isn't an average JRPG series and you know it.
They didn't assume, they knew. This is the most bizarre argument in this entire debate. I mean, the idea that console gamers on average want simpler games isn't even something up for debate, it's a fact and has been true ever since there have been consoles. That you're questioning that is kind of bizarre really... I guess it comes from the "Japanese games are different" thing, but that's irrelevant to the point! Japanese game developers make games for Japanese gamers, and Western developers make games for Western developers. Everyone makes games for their home audience. And long, long experience has proved that in the West, console gamers want simpler, easier to play games than computer gamers do.
The reasons are many, but easy to understand. First, computer games are mostly played with keyboard and mouse, while on consoles you use a gamepad. This means many more possible buttons on computer. Some computer games are designed for gamepads of course, so this isn't an absolute, but it's an important point, but still even those games can be affected by the different climate of PC gaming. Second, that computers are a productivity tool as well as gaming... as a "more serious" format, it attracted "more serious" games. Third, the lack of installing and disk swapping and such -- console games are pick up and play, to be played on a big TV from a comfy couch while you are relaxing. PC games require more effort, played in a normal or computer chair at a desk looking at a computer monitor. It's a difference in play climate. The fourth reason would be controllers, with a mouse you have more precise control of what is going on in directly controlling the movements of your characters. With a gamepad, button-mashing action, grid-based, or menu-based interfaces are more encouraged, and that is usually what we get.
But really, the core difference is just that console gamers expect different things out of games. Relaxing on the couch or whatever they usually don't want to go through the depth of a PC game... and you can see this with things like how unpopular strategy games, wargames, realistic flight sims, space sims, or mech sims, strategic D&D-style RPGs, and more all are on consoles in the West. Oh, there are some games in some of those categories, some more than others... but when they go console, they get simple.
So for instance, we get IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey, for PS3/360/DS, an action flight combat game where you just fly around and shoot stuff, instead of IL-2 Sturmovik, the serious, hardcore PC flight sim. We get Secret Weapons over Normandy, an action flight combat game, instead of TIE Fighter, a space combat sim. Super Turrican instead of Turrican 2. KotOR instead of Baldur's Gate II. Morrowind instead of Daggerfall. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 instead of Baldur's Gate III. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel instead of (Black Isle's) Fallout 3. Fable instead of Populous (yes, Populous was ported to consoles, but it was by far the most popular on computers!), Etc, etc, etc, the list is endless -- and it happened for a reason. Listening to you you'd think that the whole thing with PC games being more complex and console games simpler is all a mistake and console gamers ACTUALLY want that depth, they just aren't making many games (in the West) to fill that need...
But the actual record of released titles says otherwise. Console gamers DON'T want the kinds of depth and complexity you get from computer games. If they wanted it, they'd play PC games too... your premise is flawed, pretty much.
Of course in Japan things are different, but between the fact that most Japanese RPGs have in the past not come out here, and many still don't, and that the more complex ones often are the ones we don't see, and that the more complex often are not exactly in the mainstream. Well, apart from the usual "complexity by hiding features" stupidity I've mentioned, that wouldn't be anywhere near as complex if the game actually explained it. That's false complexity, pretty much, complexity through lack of information, not through actual depth... sometimes there is both, certainly, but even there the fact that is is hidden still makes it seem more complex than it really is.
Oh, and in Japan, yes, there are wargames and mech sims and strategy games on consoles, much more frequently than we see from Western games even now I think, and they are often not even on PCs. They often do have depth, though of course not always in ways PC games would, which makes it hard to compare... how would you compare the depth of Final Fantasy Tactics to like Disciples 2 or something, for instance? It'd be hard, they're such different kinds of games...
But anyway, sure, of course you're right that part of the issue is just that the different types of games use different kinds of depth. As I said before, at their core JRPGs are still emulating Wizardry (but with set characters and a plot) and adding things on, here and there. Western RPGs are emulating the original D&D pen and paper game, at the core. I also remember a complaint here about the issue how JRPGs seem to 'not improve'... that it isn't true, many JRPGs have introduced interesting new ideas. The problem is, they usually just stay in that one game. The genre as a whole doesn't change much. And I would absolutely maintain that on average JRPGs are simpler. Western RPGs are getting simpler on average in terms of combat and depth, as a result of the large and growing influence of consoles, while also getting more complex in terms of moral options and branching storytelling, so they're definitely following a very different path, making comparisons harder and harder over time. By now they really are almost like two separate genres.
Essentially, we need some kind of objective observer to look at this, we're too biased.
They haven't completely died out in the West, you're just not looking... there are fewer than there used to be, sure, but Baldur's Gate/Fallout/Pools of Radiance-inspired RPGs are definitely not gone, fortunately.
As for the rest of that, no. You mess up what 'average' means there... if there are more JRPGs, that means that even if there are more complex ones (a possible statement, but not one I'm sure about), it's still very unlikely that they are as complex on average, because the sheer number of simple ones will average things out to a lower level. And that's exactly how it is, I'm pretty sure.
Also, of course, basically when you think of the West there you're forgetting about MMORPGs. LOTS of people play those, and they are an offshoot of the RPG so you should not just ignore them and pretend that they don't exist or something. Like all other kinds of games they come at all levels of skill. And remember, MMOs aren't like other games, they stay in development after release, so of course there are going to be more JRPGs -- many Western developers make one or two games and stick with them for many years, instead of producing one every year or two. It's a very important difference.
No, Dragon Age isn't really a 'throwback', it's a traditional D&D style RPG, the kind that does still get made on PC once in a while, as Neverwinter Nights 2 proves. It's a somewhat traditional style sure, but not a throwback.
Etrian Odyssey though was, and it was intended as such. The gameplay, music, etc... all designed to create a new version of the kind of experience you got in RPGs sometimes back in the '80s. That was the goal, and that is what they did. Of course you are right taht in general dungeon crawlers have existed, but even they usually have a few of the elements of newer JRPGs, like having a specific main character, etc. Etrian Odyssey has character creation. Anyway there had been a few dungeon crawlers on consoles, as you say (the Japanese Wizardry titles would be more examples), but not that many... because most RPG fans don't like those games all that much anymore, they like newer things like what the JRPG became or what the Western RPG became. They're a bit more popular now in Japan than in the West, because Japanese RPGs now are in their gameplay much closer to that style than Western ones are (as I said with how JRPGs mostly missed the Pool of Radiance boat that Western RPGs mostly took), but still the popularity of the straight-up dungeon crawlers is niche everywhere, really.
Hey, that's not entirely true. We got several games since BGII:ToB back in mid '01... for the top-rank stuff there is Arcanum later in 2001, Greyhawk: Temple of Elemental Evil several years later, Neverwinter Nights 2, its two retail expansions, and its download campaigns, and more, and lower down there are lots of things, like a bunch of European stuff (Drakensang, to name one recent mid-budget example), the Spiderweb Software games I referenced, various freeware titles, etc. Of course most PC RPGs now either have action combat (Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Diablo, etc) or are MMOs, but there are a FEW out there that use strategic combat.
Did it? I don't know. I don't think you're right about PC audiences wanting simple games though, now, there are still a decent number of complex PC games out there, and when they go console they still get simplified or cut down on... so no.
Oh, and Mass Effect and Jade Empire are obviously results of Bioware going console... though in those cases they are action-RPGs, not traditional ones, so they can't be directly compared. I mean, Bioware did also make Shattered Steel as their first game, a decent but not great mech sim, and then MDK 2 a while later, which was on PC, Dreamcast, and PS2... they had some history in making action games, so those games were not entirely out of character or something. It's NWN and KotOR that were particularly disappointing, each for very different reasons.
When any party members who died during battle get resurrected automatically at the end of the battle, with no penalty except maybe having 1 hit point until you heal them, instead of you having to go back to town to res them, use res items or spells, etc. That is, remove any consequence for having people die during battles as long as someone in the party survives.
The first RPG I can think of with it is Lunar for the Sega CD, though I'm sure there were others before that with it, I imagine.
It's a really important issue in my opinion, being forced to read guides before I even start playing just so I can understand how to play the game because the game and manual do such a horrible job of explaining how the game actually works, and then on top of that hide many vitally important factors, is incredibly bad game design! And yet somehow it is the standard way JRPGs work... awful, really awful.
Well we agree on this at least.
I just think that I think it's a lot more important than you do... this matters, a lot. Bioware has said that they will never make another game without a morality system, and that is a great and important policy.
A Black Falcon
Member
"Choose the wrong spell or your entire party dies" just sounds like unnecessary difficulty more than it does complexity... but I think I covered that already above. No, D&D doesn't work like that, because it's trying to actually be fair, not unbalanced against the players. And that kind of thing is not fair. D&D is the definition of mainstream in RPGs -- it created the entire genre, both Western and Japanese. It isn't the most complex or the simplest system, and not the easiest or the hardest. It's the originator. All RPGs are D&D knockoffs. (Also, of course, I love D&D more than any other fantasy game system or world, and have been reading D&D stuff since I was a kid even before I was actually playing the games, and love traditional Western fantasy worlds... but that's just me, this should be more general.)
On the other hand, SMT/Megaten is very much a niche series, as I have said. I know htat in terms of video/computer game releases they might not be that far apart, but D&D is also a pen and paper game of course, the most popular such game around. There are also many D&D fantasy novels, well-developed gameworlds both current and past, and more. SMT is, in comparison, a niche game series with some popularity but without the broad-based mainstream success of something like Dragon Quest, which is the standard of JRPGs. Using SMT as your example for the "average JRPG" or something is extremely, EXTREMELY deceptive; it is in fact essentially the opposite of that, and you occasionally admit that. I haven't played the SMT games enough to say anything about how deep they are, but irrespective of that, if you're using them as examples of 'complex end of JRPGs', they should be compared to the complex end of WRPGs. I'm not sure what that would be, but it probably wouldn't be a D&D game... though I suspect that the game(s) in question would vary greatly depending on your definition of complexity. What about something like Arcanum for that, for instance...
On another note, for the difficulty of the tabletop game, it depends entirely on the players' skill versus the DM's. If the players are smarter or better than the DM, it won't be that hard... if it's the other way around, it will be if the DM wants it that way. And that's why I'm trying to drop difficulty here, it's an entirely contextual factor as far as the tabletop game goes -- every game will be different.
But anyway, yes, it's very easy to die, and both resting and resurrection don't happen as often in the tabletop game as they do in the videogames, from my experience... no "after every fight we go around the corner and sleep 24 hours to heal everyone", generally. DMs don't like that kind of thing.
But anyway, how dangerous tabletop D&D is depends on the DM and the players more than anything else.On the computer/console side, of course hardcore D&D games aren't the most popular games either, now, but historically they have been pretty popular at times. And anyway, now, as I said, the PC RPG industry is heavily focused on MMOs, so it's hard to directly compare things considering that.
No, insulting because of the word being used. It's saying "women are weak and the target of this is like that so they're bad", which is a horrible and not true thing to say. I would never use such words.
Gorgon said:
Persona 2 has a field, but I don't remember being able to give movement orders... anyway you can usually just attack any enemy I think so it's not that important, and you start close to them, like Grandia. At least in Lunar you have to 'move' to get to them and many characters can't attack on their first turn unless they use a special... positioning and tactical movement in battle are very important things to me, not having them is always something I dislike and think a game simpler for, whatever else it's got. Tactical movement should be one of the most important aspects of depth in RPGs...
Anyway, good discussion mate. I still think that you have a few misconceptions there. Other things are a matter of opinion and as such are not open to discussion, only dialogue. Keep on gaming
EDIT: shit, I'm almost out of breath after reading/writting all that.:lol
Sure.
IrishNinja
Member
Darvan said:
wait, when has that happened?
Toy Soldier
Member
IrishNinja said:
UTIII on PS3 made it easy to adapt PC mods to the console, but this game would be a different beast altogether.
Yea the PC version will definitely be the definitive version.
I will be getting it on Xbox 360 first because my PC is not up to scratch at the moment but I can't wait to play it.
I'll get it for PC when I upgrade probably next year. By then I can play through it as other characters as well as some of the mods that would have come out by then.
I will be getting it on Xbox 360 first because my PC is not up to scratch at the moment but I can't wait to play it.
I'll get it for PC when I upgrade probably next year. By then I can play through it as other characters as well as some of the mods that would have come out by then.
I am pretty sure this game is going to come out and really shock a lot of detractors with it's scope and quality. All the bad advertising will just be a distant memory and RPG fans will have a field day.
Just been delving into some of the wiki pages on the official site and watching some docos on youtube (Far far better than all of the advertising so far):
Writing an epic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc-szwJViBU
Creatures of DA:
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxcuTE6N7cM
part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJH5RYJbYew&feature=channel
Creating a living world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD58eSZ_2Xk
Just been delving into some of the wiki pages on the official site and watching some docos on youtube (Far far better than all of the advertising so far):
Writing an epic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc-szwJViBU
Creatures of DA:
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxcuTE6N7cM
part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJH5RYJbYew&feature=channel
Creating a living world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD58eSZ_2Xk
Didn't they say that they might bring some of the top PC mods to the consoles?
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/08/30/dragon-age-origins-could-be-boosted-by-mods/
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/08/30/dragon-age-origins-could-be-boosted-by-mods/
Gorgon
Member
A Black Falcon:
I'm gonna beg your forgiveness but I really don't have the time or stamina to answer all that :lol
I'd like to thank you and everyone that has contributed to this discussion. Although it was off-topic I think the mods realized that it was actually a productive and interesting discussion and as such let it go its natural course. Again, thank you
I'd just like to make a brief comment regarding this:
I honestly don't agree. Sorry. I think instead that GAMERS in general, regardless of platform, prefer simpler games that provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION and the simplification we see in games is simply the developers realization of this fact. Don't forget that the biggest platform for casual gamming is still, and ever was, the PC. Simpler and fun sell more than complex (which are also fun but in another way). It's a matter of market. It really doesn't have anything to do with beying on consoles or not.
Everything else we could just keep discussing ad infinitum, and it would honestly be a good and interesting discussion, but I just don't have the time or will for it. Plus, I have Demon's Souls right now to dive my teeth into!
Again, thank you all.
I'm gonna beg your forgiveness but I really don't have the time or stamina to answer all that :lol
I'd like to thank you and everyone that has contributed to this discussion. Although it was off-topic I think the mods realized that it was actually a productive and interesting discussion and as such let it go its natural course. Again, thank you
I'd just like to make a brief comment regarding this:
I honestly don't agree. Sorry. I think instead that GAMERS in general, regardless of platform, prefer simpler games that provide INSTANT GRATIFICATION and the simplification we see in games is simply the developers realization of this fact. Don't forget that the biggest platform for casual gamming is still, and ever was, the PC. Simpler and fun sell more than complex (which are also fun but in another way). It's a matter of market. It really doesn't have anything to do with beying on consoles or not.
Everything else we could just keep discussing ad infinitum, and it would honestly be a good and interesting discussion, but I just don't have the time or will for it. Plus, I have Demon's Souls right now to dive my teeth into!
Again, thank you all.
bigmit3737
Member
Bossman said:
But they have to go through MS and Sony QA I think.
It's going to be a hassle.
I am just excited in that the toolset is supposed to be pretty powerful and we will get mods to tweak the game on how we want to play.
bigmit3737 said:
If the toolset will offer the same capabilities like the NWN1 one did we're in for a treat...
Community did (and is stil doing) awesome stuff with that. (persistent worlds like mini-mmorgs etc) Shame the NWN2 modscene/multiplayer stuff never really boomed like NWN1 did. (toolset and database management was VERY limited there IIRC)
bigmit3737
Member
koji said:If the toolset will offer the same capabilities like the NWN1 one did we're in for a treat...
Community did (and is stil doing) awesome stuff with that. (persistent worlds like mini-mmorgs etc) Shame the NWN2 modscene/multiplayer stuff never really boomed like NWN1 did. (toolset and database management was VERY limited there IIRC)
I don't know how powerful the NWN toolset was but this one's allows for changing NPC and Enemy AI.
You can purchase the digital deluxe edition at Impulse right now for $52 by applying the code SURVEY-2009
The DDE comes with Warden's Keep, so unless you can find the normal edition for $45 or less, this is cheaper than buying the game and the day 1 DLC, and you get a few useless ingame items and the soundtrack.
http://www.impulsedriven.com/dragonagece
The DDE comes with Warden's Keep, so unless you can find the normal edition for $45 or less, this is cheaper than buying the game and the day 1 DLC, and you get a few useless ingame items and the soundtrack.
http://www.impulsedriven.com/dragonagece
ElyrionX said:
Well Im not entirely sure what they all entail. Shapeshifter could be cool if the forms all had their own special abilities (Spider can shoot webs and poison). Spirit Healer just sounds like high level cleric stuff. Im assuming Arcane Warrior is a mage warrior. Blood Mage is I guees a dark mage so maybe they will have some cool power.
But I agree, Rogue seems to have the best specializations. Even though Reaver intrigues me under Warrior.
Danne-Danger
Member
That's only for the US and Canada though.Victrix said:
Zod the Bear
Member
mitheor said:
Thanks much! 3 minutes away from downloading now.
The more hype that comes out for this the easier it is to place it further down the list for games to purchase.
Everything that comes out whether screen caps, CG trailers, interviews and now the creator hides the ingame play even more. Hiding the game play has never, never ever never turned out to be a good thing. Predicting bargain bin pricing before Christmas.
Everything that comes out whether screen caps, CG trailers, interviews and now the creator hides the ingame play even more. Hiding the game play has never, never ever never turned out to be a good thing. Predicting bargain bin pricing before Christmas.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Apeboy said:
They've been working on this game since Neverwinter Nights, dude. I don't think you have to worry about the core game play at all.
I don't think that the gameplay has been hidden, the quick look was 20 minutes and seems to have hyped a lot of people mainly because of the high quality gameplay.
I am really excited for this game, since KOTOR I have played every Bioware game (apart from the Sonic rpg) and have not been disappointed by any of them.
I am really excited for this game, since KOTOR I have played every Bioware game (apart from the Sonic rpg) and have not been disappointed by any of them.
Zod the Bear
Member
Well, tried out a few characters--couldn't reduce attribute points below their default levels, just raise them.
While it ran, I had some annoying artifacts over the character, so I've confirmed I'll be getting it for the 360 : \
While it ran, I had some annoying artifacts over the character, so I've confirmed I'll be getting it for the 360 : \
PC Jeux review, here's some info that might be interesting:
- Races slightly differ from stereotypes: Elves not as arrogant, dwarves act like Byzantines.
- Story is very "classical" but still avoids cliches. DA level story is a rarity in video games (so it's good).
- 8 companions, all are well made and different. You get their quests as you develop your friendship. One of them is a berserker child killer apparently and one is an ex-murderer who wants to get rid of his past (there are good guys as well). Companions may react strongly to your decisions.
- 70 hours for average playthrough.
- Specializations are unlocked by reading rare books, doing sidequests or talking to NPCs.
- Does good justice to BG series.
- Negatives: Graphics not amazing, weapon/armor models not that varied, loading is a bit long (between areas).
95/100. He states that the game has potential to become a big hit. Also that 95 is apparently the highest this mag has ever given to a RPG.
- Races slightly differ from stereotypes: Elves not as arrogant, dwarves act like Byzantines.
- Story is very "classical" but still avoids cliches. DA level story is a rarity in video games (so it's good).
- 8 companions, all are well made and different. You get their quests as you develop your friendship. One of them is a berserker child killer apparently and one is an ex-murderer who wants to get rid of his past (there are good guys as well). Companions may react strongly to your decisions.
- 70 hours for average playthrough.
- Specializations are unlocked by reading rare books, doing sidequests or talking to NPCs.
- Does good justice to BG series.
- Negatives: Graphics not amazing, weapon/armor models not that varied, loading is a bit long (between areas).
95/100. He states that the game has potential to become a big hit. Also that 95 is apparently the highest this mag has ever given to a RPG.
MirageDwarf
Member
Rad- said:
Fucking awesome even if ends up 50. I know I'll get more than 70 for sure.
Dark Stalkers
Member
Do you get different companions for each origin?
Basileus777
Member
Dark Stalkers said:
You get different temporary companions, but the only difference for the permanent ones are probably the order you get some of them.
A Black Falcon
Member
Gorgon said:A Black Falcon:
I'm gonna beg your forgiveness but I really don't have the time or stamina to answer all that :lol
I'd like to thank you and everyone that has contributed to this discussion. Although it was off-topic I think the mods realized that it was actually a productive and interesting discussion and as such let it go its natural course. Again, thank you
Even so, I really think you need to seriously consider the major points I made on the issues of difficulty and complexity, namely:
-Save anywhere is an absolute good that should be in all RPGs. Better save systems make games better, not easier.
-On that note, just because a game has infinite continues or save anywhere, you don't need to use them. Have some willpower, it's not forcing you to use it if you don't want to!
-Difficulty and complexity are different issues that must be considered and debated separately and should not be combined.
-On the issue of complexity, game design elements like moral questions, morality meters, branching plots that allow you to be good or evil, and such are elements of depth that should be considered when discussing how complex a game is. The complexity of the battle system is not the only thing that matters. RPGs are, or should be, about more than just combat.
I think I provided more than enough evidence in my last post to prove that this is not true. As I said, this is your most bizarre argument, because it is the one most easily proven wrong and the one with the most evidence showing how that isn't the way things work...
As I said, PC games cover the full spectrum from very simple to very complex. Console games cover that spectrum as well, but are much more heavily weighted towards the simple side. But I said that in my last post, with a bunch of evidence, so I don't need to repeat myself.
Here's one more thing though, that I didn't mention there. Back in the early to mid 1980s, the goal of every console manufacturer was to turn their machine into a computer, because consoles were just videogame machines while computers were serious parts of the household. Nintendo redeemed the 'console as just a game machine', but those two views, of the useful appliance with more serious product versus the toy with games on it, have lasted in some form or other, and absolutely color the games available on each system to a greater or lesser extent. I gave lots of examples of what happens when a computer game series goes console last time, and there are many, many more. How about a few more examples. MechWarrior 2, PC vs. PSX/Saturn - mech sim to arcade action mech game. Civilization 1-4 to Civilization Revolution - much simpler on consoles. Even an action game like Crusader: No Remorse got simplified a bit in its console ports. Etc. The people making those decisions know more about the markets of each system than we do...
Of course I wish that more console games DID have the depth of computer games, and a few do, when consoles actually get a straight, unsimplified port of a PC game,
Casual PC games are really a completely different market. They sell because everyone has a computer. While on consoles the idea of casual games being a 'gateway' into more serious gaming is perhaps plausible, because those consoles can't do much else (particularly not the DS and Wii which are the main beneficiaries of that), on PC that doesn't apply as much, I think, because of both the fact that PCs can do many other things and the big gulf between system requirements for casual games when compared to 'core gamer' ones.
I don't think there's one single genre that is as complex on consoles on average as they are on computers. Not one. Platformers are the only one I can even consider mentioning, really... but even there I'm not sure. Maybe, maybe not. But in action games, FPSes, strategy games of all kinds, wargames, simulation games, adventure games, racing games, and more, the deeper games are on PC. That doesn't mean the BEST games are on PC, depending on your tastes -- in racing games for instance I definitely prefer more arcadey stuff to sim racers -- but the more complex ones are.