Bioware and Spike TV Game Awards [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Lord of the Helms

2011-11-16, 02:57 AM

So, new Issue of GI came in the mail today, and it's talking about the Spike TV Video Game Awards show, and apparently Bioware is going to unveil what they speculate to be a brand new game/game series. Is anyone else hopeful and looking forward to this? I've been a longtime Bioware fan, dating back to Baldurs Gate days, I loved NWN, Dragon Age(but not it's expansion or the second), and Sonic Chronicles(DS game, was very good). I also own, but still haven't played the original Mass Effect, and I eventually plan on buying Jade Empire as well.

I know they've fallen a bit in recent years, but they still have enough goodwill built up that I'm looking forward to what they are unveiling. Any speculations as to what it is, and other people excited?

Excited: Yes. I've played every Bioware RPG ever, only The Old Republic will not be played by me because it's an MMO-game and I always find those offer too little reward for the large amount of precious time I have to pour into them, the least good Bioware game I played was the Original Campaign of NWN and even that was fun to play, the Baldur's Gate II is one of my four favourite games of all time and KOTOR, Jade Empire, and the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games were all great fun. I don't see why they've "fallen a bit" in recent years, the only game of theirs with less than excellent reception was Dragon Age II, while Mass Effect (2010) and Dragon Age I (2008) as well as Awakening (2009) each were extremely well received, commercially successful and rated as one of the or the top RPG of their year by the vast majority of magazines and user ratings alike.

On: What it is? Hard to tell. They currently have one Sci Fi series and one fantasy series going on, plus a licensed Star Wars MMO-Game. Probably won't be another MMOG, but other than that it's hard to call. Definitely some sort of RPG, and judging from recent games it'll likely be heavier on the action side than their older games. It'd be really interesting if they did another game with a sophisticated melee-fighting system a la Jade Empire, but I'm not sure if that can be reconciled with exploding jeeps. Unless Mechs are involved :smallamused:

Starwulf

2011-11-16, 03:04 AM

Excited: Yes. I've played every Bioware RPG ever, only The Old Republic will not be played by me because it's an MMO-game and I always find those offer too little reward for the large amount of precious time I have to pour into them, the least good Bioware game I played was the Original Campaign of NWN and even that was fun to play, the Baldur's Gate II is one of my four favourite games of all time and KOTOR, Jade Empire, and the Mass Effect and Dragon Age games were all great fun. I don't see why they've "fallen a bit" in recent years, the only game of theirs with less than excellent reception was Dragon Age II, while Mass Effect (2010) and Dragon Age I (2008) as well as Awakening (2009) each were extremely well received, commercially successful and rated as one of the or the top RPG of their year by the vast majority of magazines and user ratings alike.

On: What it is? Hard to tell. They currently have one Sci Fi series and one fantasy series going on, plus a licensed Star Wars MMO-Game. Probably won't be another MMOG, but other than that it's hard to call. Definitely some sort of RPG, and judging from recent games it'll likely be heavier on the action side than their older games. It'd be really interesting if they did another game with a sophisticated melee-fighting system a la Jade Empire, but I'm not sure if that can be reconciled with exploding jeeps. Unless Mechs are involved :smallamused:

While Awakening may have been commercially successful, it was a disaster when it was released, buggy as all hell, and one of the biggest bugs of all, was a game-breaking bug that prevented you from completing a questline, and if you tried, it would forever destroy that playthrough due to how it worked out, and you would have to start it all over again. Add on top of that the fact that they said they could not fix that particular bug, and never did, because of how it was embedded in the code, and you have a fairly major problem. A lot of people who don't frequent forums were left out in the cold on that one, never knowing why something is going wrong and preventing them from moving forward, and you have a massive faux-paux. I have not met more then a handful of people who truly enjoyed it, and even on Biowares forums itself, the game garnered much hatred from the DA fanbase. Add on top of that their pretty lousy DLC, and the crap-release that was DA2, and that's where you get "They've fallen a little" in recent time. Not saying they are crap or anything, just that two of their last major releases for their newest franchise, DA, were pretty lousy and have damaged them a bit.

I do still greatly look forward to this new release, even with the knowledge it's obviously in a modern setting, I still hope for a form of RPG :)

KingofMadCows

2011-11-16, 04:56 AM

Maybe they worked out a deal with Brian Fargo and are making a Wasteland sequel.

Derthric

2011-11-16, 12:43 PM

Hey Bioware, just make Jade Empire 2 already. You know you want to.

The problem with anything going forward now, is how much of these games are Bioware and how much is it EA interfering with Bioware or just slapping Bioware in front of a new studio name to carry some cache in the market? And on that note, I will need something more than a standard EA marketing style to sell me on the game if they are detail lite on setting story and features as they have tended to be with marketing since the acquisition.

That all being said, it will be nice to having something to possibly look forward to post ME3.

You can blow up a jeep with a harmonic combo right?.........

Psyren

2011-11-16, 01:23 PM

Hey Bioware, just make Jade Empire 2 already. You know you want to.

According to David Gaider, it didn't sell well. :smallfrown:

I hold out hope though.

MCerberus

2011-11-16, 01:30 PM

My guess is Mad max post apocalypse RPG. the exploding dune buggy and the fact there are in a vegatation free zone gives this vibe.

Imagined discussion:

Bioware1: Hey you know Borderlands
Bioware2: Yah, lots of good stuff there. A shame about some interface elements and some polish issues.
Bioware1: I mean imagine if some large study with a solid track record that enjoys making action RPGs were to-
Me: *head explode*

iyaerP

2011-11-16, 08:22 PM

See, the problem I have with Bioware as a studio is that they have been steadily moving further and further away from RPG, and more into just generic action, and as someone who LOVED their original work ala Baldur's Gate, NWN, KOTOR, and Jade Empire.

Dragon's Age Origins, and Mass Effect 1 were both a load of fun for me. The change of pace with Mass Effect 2, where the RPG elements were noticably cut to the point of hardly mattering(and don't even get me started on thermal clips) was enough to prevent me from buying Dragon's Age 2.

So while I hold out hope, I do not anticipate a new Bioware IP being anything like what that phrase would have meant 5-10 years ago.

MCerberus

2011-11-16, 08:43 PM

We do have Bioware saying 'oops' when people called them out on the reduced rpg-ness of MA2. But even if they promise to bring back the complexity, there's still the matter of creative destruction.

warty goblin

2011-11-16, 09:02 PM

See, the problem I have with Bioware as a studio is that they have been steadily moving further and further away from RPG, and more into just generic action, and as someone who LOVED their original work ala Baldur's Gate, NWN, KOTOR, and Jade Empire.

Bioware's first game was a mech action/sim title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered_Steel) as a matter of fact.

Personally Bioware has made one game ever (Mass Effect) that I actually liked, and even that was essentially a somewhat shiny version of slightly above average. Suffice to say they aren't a developer I get excited about on principle - a new Arkane game? I'm jumping that hype train, but Mass Effect wasn't a quarter the fun that Dark Messiah is.

iyaerP

2011-11-16, 09:13 PM

Speaking as someone who has played most all bioware games and Dark Messiah of Might and Magick, I know which ones I tend to prefer. Because when I can choose between open world and on-a-rail, I will choose open world every time. Especially if it is for an RPG.

I will be honest, I would love it if Dark MEssiah people were to make a game using the Red Faction Resistance physics engine rather than in the source engine again, as the destrucable buildings just CRIES out for magic use.

Zevox

2011-11-16, 10:33 PM

See, the problem I have with Bioware as a studio is that they have been steadily moving further and further away from RPG, and more into just generic action, and as someone who LOVED their original work ala Baldur's Gate, NWN, KOTOR, and Jade Empire.
BS. Not a single one of Bioware's games is any less RPG than the others. Heck, the one with most action-based combat system is among those you love, Jade Empire. Speed that one up a little and you could easily make a non-RPG action game out of it.

Zevox

iyaerP

2011-11-17, 12:55 AM

Except the one I made a point of, Mass effect 2? That dropped so much of the customization and class abilities from ME1 that it isn't even funny.

There is literally less than a third the possible customization and modification availible in ME2 as far as guns, skills, abilities and powers go. Everything got dumbed down, cut down, or outright removed.

Don't get me wrong, I still had fun with the game. The final mission's setup and playthrough with performance based on squad loyalty was pure GENIUS. But the core gameplay went so far away from RPG and into straight up FPS territory that I will be suprised if ME3 has any RPG left in it at all, or if it will just be a straight up halo/call of duty clone with only a set number of guns, and regenerating health, and no classes or abilities at all.

Everything in the industry is getting dumbed down for the mouth breathing, adrenaline junky shooter sheep, and I HATE it. I HATE it, I HATE it, I HATE it, I HATE IT. My hatred is a visceral and physical force that makes my chest burn and my hands clench up out of pure fury. In large part I blame EA for this, as they currently own Bioware, and they have done this kind of thing with past IPs. Don't get me wrong, without EA's cash influx, Bioware probably wouldn't have been able to develop any of these games in the first place, but the at-least-one-game-per-IP-per-year mentality that EA has is showing in the increased number of bugs in recent games, and EA's need to pander to the widest possible base is showing in that they are turning everything into pure action. (Mass Effect turning into HALO, Dragon's Age turning into God of War)

I honestly don't know if there is anything that we the customers can do about it, other than not buy games, which is a lose-lose proposition. As previously mentioned, I am holding out hope, but I have no great expectations for this new title.

Zevox

2011-11-17, 01:25 AM

Except the one I made a point of, Mass effect 2? That dropped so much of the customization and class abilities from ME1 that it isn't even funny.
No, they didn't. They improved it. Drastically. Rather than abilities with a punch of points to take that barely improved them at all (mostly by 1 or 2 percent per point, sometimes even by a fraction of a percentage point) you had abilities with few levels, but every one was meaningful (aside from a few that only gained duration when their starting duration was plenty), plus with each having a branching option for how to improve it once you maxed it out. Plus the classes were differentiated much better, with unique class abilities significantly altering how they played compared to each other, particularly with the Sentinel's tech armor and the Vanguard's biotic charge.

And with guns the improvement is even better - rather than mods that barely affected the weapon until you got the tier 8 and 9 stuff (and even most of that was still just slightly better versions of the same mods you were stuck with all game) you got a few weapons that actually varied from each other in significant ways. Like the Viper Sniper Rifle that lost a lot of power compared to the normal Sniper Rifle, but gained a much greater rate of fire and clip size; or the geth plasma shotgun, which is far more accurate than any other shotgun (and even has a minor tracking effect) at the cost of firepower. Plus the heavy weapons, which were all highly different from each other, from the grenade launcher to the collector particle beam to the Cain mini-nuke (and my personal favorite, the DLC Black Hole Gun).

Absolutely nothing in ME2 was "dumbed down." It was flat-out improved. And it was every bit as much an RPG as every other game Bioware has made.

Also, customization and gaining abilities is not the sole defining attribute of an RPG. If it were, games like Devil May Cry and God of War would be RPGs.

Dragon's Age turning into God of War)
And this shows that you have either never played Dragon Age 2 or never played God of War, because the two have about as much in common as Jade Empire and Mario.

Zevox

iyaerP

2011-11-17, 02:01 AM

I grant that I haven't played Dragon's age 2, because given what they did to mass effect 2, and all the prerelease information availible, I didn't think that my purchase would be justified as it was moving away from RPG and into Hack and slash. The god of war example was just provided as the far extreme of console hack and slash, just as halo was provided as the console extreme version of the FPS.

Everything else, I disagree with you on every point. Having three guns for each weapon type? Matters not. ME1 had the same spread of different stat distributions based on the manufacturer's company, and the added benefit of the guns getting incramentally better as you leveled. Same with the mods. Mass Effect 2 had fewer levels of everything, player, guns, class, and abilities, because the game itself was so much shorter and lost TONS of the open world aspect that ME1 had. They needed to have each level matter more, because the game itself was so much less. I spent almost 90 hours on my first ME1 playthrough. ME2 took me less than 30. I hit levelcap in both.

The heavy weapons? I care not for, as their presence cost me my modular and customizable grenades and my MAKO IFV. See earlier point about loss of open world terrain. Mass Effect 1 felt like I game where I was exploring the galaxy in an epic space opera. Mass Effect 2 felt like a corridor shooter where I got to choose which corridor I would explore first. Oh, and rather than open world exploration, it featured the most mind-numbingly boring timesink minigame to ever exist in video game form, and toted that as an "improvement" over getting to rampage different maps in my almost flying tank.

And for the combat being improved? HAH!

The whole point of an RPG is that it is a story of growth. Both in characterization and abilities. In ME1, you start with piss poor aim with all weapons, limited abilities, and all but nonexistant spellcasting powers, be they tech, biotic or just soldier cooldowns. By the end of the game, your aim is perfect with every shot a bullseye, you are a casting machine, and you are a veritable combat juggernaught. In short, they take and use the system that Deus Ex had, and it is PERFECT. By comparison, in ME2, all that happens as you level up is your skill powers get better. Your aim is consistantly the same throughout the game, so there is no feeling of improvement. Your damage upgrades come not from skill points and better guns in conjunction, but simply from your base gun + generic damage upgrades bought with tons and tons and TONS of iridium/platium/whatever. So rather than having the system to improve your guns built into the core gameplay mechanics, and be something that naturally happens as you progress, you have to take time away from your fun to go scroll thru planet after planet, trying to stay awake while listening for the tonals indicating that a probe should be launched. In the first game, I could achieve the same effect (LOOT FOR THE LOOT GOD) while doing the sidequests and hunting thrsher maws in my MAKO. And on the subject of weapon upgrades, and by extension, ammo upgrades, let us suppose for a moment that I wanted to do a setup where for example, garrus snipes them with cold rounds to freeze them and then tali shotguns them with hammerhead rounds for a shatter. In ME1, all this takes is a moment in inventory. In ME2, if these chars don't have that ammo ability built into their class, then I am just sh*t out of luck. Meaning that rather than take who I want for flavor or fluff reasons, and then minmaxxing within that, I have to tailor my crew for each mission based on who can do what, not who I want to take.

As for the Thermal Clips? That will be my next post. I have an entire page worth of ranting for that.

Acanous

2011-11-17, 02:25 AM

Gah, it's "Dragon Age" not "Dragon's Age".

I was actually one of the playtesters for Mass Effect 2. I rather liked the changes to the skill tree and the new ability system. I compared the combat favorably to Halo. I suppose I am partially to blame for your hate.

I will, of course, be picking up Mass Effect 3. I've already preordered and paid for my special edition copy.

Zevox

2011-11-17, 02:43 AM

Everything else, I disagree with you on every point. Having three guns for each weapon type? Matters not. ME1 had the same spread of different stat distributions based on the manufacturer's company,
No, no it did not. The stat distributions in ME1 barely affected anything. The differences between each weapon in ME2 are substantial and readily noticeable.

and the added benefit of the guns getting incramentally better as you leveled.
Which isn't a benefit at all, since the enemies also got that same incremental stat increase, rendering the net change in combat effectively null.

Oh, except for the fact that, after your first play through of the game, you had high-level weapons available for purchase from the get-go in the future, and money was so abundant in ME1 that you could pick up the best weapons in the game by the halfway point in every play through but your first. Yeah, little temporarily-game-breaking problem there.

Mass Effect 2 had fewer levels of everything, player, guns, class, and abilities, because the game itself was so much shorter and lost TONS of the open world aspect that ME1 had. They needed to have each level matter more, because the game itself was so much less. I spent almost 90 hours on my first ME1 playthrough. ME2 took me less than 30. I hit levelcap in both.
And that too is an improvement. The "open world aspect" of ME1 was a bunch of almost entirely empty planets that took way too long to move around due to you being stuck in a vehicle with piss-poor handling moving around terrain designed to frustrate you. It winds up a much longer play time due to a large number of side-quests - which all used the same pattern of "go to uninhabited planet, find building (which will always be one of three designs, a severe gameplay limitation that left those sidequests boring as all hell), enter building and either kill everything or, in a few cases, talk your way out." It was wasteful, pointless, and ultimately boring. ME2 did much better by focusing on the important part, the characters and their stories, and including only a few sidequests but at least giving them all unique areas to play through.

The heavy weapons? I care not for, as their presence cost me my modular and customizable grenades and my MAKO IFV.
The Mako's removal was a big improvement. The grenades were no loss - their customization was as minor as the mods on the weapons, and they pale compared to the heavy weapons of 2.

See earlier point about loss of open world terrain. Mass Effect 1 felt like I game where I was exploring the galaxy in an epic space opera. Mass Effect 2 felt like a corridor shooter where I got to choose which corridor I would explore first.
Here we have a simple difference of taste then - I would much rather have a more focused game than a more open one. Give me objectives to accomplish and stories to enjoy over space to wander every time.

Oh, and rather than open world exploration, it featured the most mind-numbingly boring timesink minigame to ever exist in video game form, and toted that as an "improvement" over getting to rampage different maps in my almost flying tank.
Ah, I'd forgotten about planet scanning. Yes, that is the one big flaw with ME2. Which is far fewer big flaws than ME1 had, but still.

And for the combat being improved? HAH!
Very much so. Cover mechanics were greatly improved, powers work much more smoothly, weapons and powers in general were much improved as mentioned before, classes better differentiated, the works. The only complaint I have about ME2 compared to 1 is the introduction of the ammo system, which is a personal taste thing largely, especially since I rarely had any trouble keeping myself swimming in ammo.

The whole point of an RPG is that it is a story of growth.
You're half right. Story and growth are two defining aspects of the genre - RPGs tend to have a strong focus on their storylines, and they include some system whereby the character(s) become more powerful over time, usually a level up system. Mass Effect 2 had both of those, very much so. Hence, it is an RPG.

And on the subject of weapon upgrades, and by extension, ammo upgrades, let us suppose for a moment that I wanted to do a setup where for example, garrus snipes them with cold rounds to freeze them and then tali shotguns them with hammerhead rounds for a shatter. In ME1, all this takes is a moment in inventory. In ME2, if these chars don't have that ammo ability built into their class, then I am just sh*t out of luck.
Correction: In ME1, you are sh*t out of luck, because cold rounds do not freeze anything in that game, they just allow your shots to partially ignore shields when doing damage and apply a minor penalty to your target's accuracy. That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I said the mods in ME1 are minor until you get the tier 8 and 9 stuff. Whereas in ME2 cold rounds actually freeze targets and leave them vulnerable, having them take significantly more damage while they are frozen, thereby giving them an actual point to their existence, unlike in ME1.

Meaning that rather than take who I want for flavor or fluff reasons, and then minmaxxing within that, I have to tailor my crew for each mission based on who can do what, not who I want to take.
Which is an improvement - actually differentiating the characters and making them more unique rather than having their abilities have massive overlap, thus making them interchangeable.

Zevox

Derthric

2011-11-17, 02:52 AM

ME1 and ME2 have their respective strong points. I prefer the feel, tone and trappings of ME1, but the gameplay and characters of ME2.

For me the most important element of any game is the story, and while ME2 was more episodic I cared about each mission and had great immersion in the game because of it. ME1 had the same but the pacing was off, 30 minute mako wanderings were tedious after the 20th planetfall for 3 random loot bins and a metal or two. Planet scanning was dull dull dull, but never felt as tedious.

Now that I am guilty of adding to more ME1 vs ME2 flaming. I have to say that as long as they avoid the railroading of DA2(perhaps its greatest sin IMHO), and stick to a fully fleshed out story with rich characters then I will enjoy it. I was disappointed when I saw what was NOT in Jade Empire, extensive loot and character customization, building your teammates, picking powers etc. But in the end it was the story, the twist on the main villain and the fact that I lucked into that threeway with the Princess and Dawn Star on my first play through without fore knowledge made the game so memorable and fun. So I will wait and be lulled by a simple trailer into further fandom.

I just want actual presentation not EA's " Rock, Boobs! and 'Splosions!" style marketing. Seriously find the original trailers for DA:O and then the ones after EA bought them, night and day.

Sanguine

2011-11-17, 03:15 AM

Mass Effect 2 allowed me to romance Tali. That alone is enough to sell me on it.

Dienekes

2011-11-17, 03:48 AM

Everything else, I disagree with you on every point. Having three guns for each weapon type? Matters not. ME1 had the same spread of different stat distributions based on the manufacturer's company, and the added benefit of the guns getting incramentally better as you leveled.

Now I'm trying to understand the reasoning of those who liked ME1 more than 2. It's foreign to me. I can generally see Warty's claims that ME1 had a stronger core storyline, but that's neither here nor there. On actual gameplay it's always confused me.

Every rifle plays the same in ME1, as does every shotgun, every pistol. All you looked for was which one had the most damage, the rest was rather inconsequential. That's not really stat distribution. In ME2 each rifle actually felt different, and in some cases the next strongest gun wasn't the one you took because you liked the feel of an earlier gun better. For me, the core example is Sniper rifles. If it's just about stats being leveled with you, there is really no reason to change guns as that is just a cosmetic difference that takes unnecessary time (especially when you consider how much useless crap the opponents dropped).

Same with the mods. Mass Effect 2 had fewer levels of everything, player, guns, class, and abilities, because the game itself was so much shorter and lost TONS of the open world aspect that ME1 had. They needed to have each level matter more, because the game itself was so much less. I spent almost 90 hours on my first ME1 playthrough. ME2 took me less than 30. I hit levelcap in both.

Now I like some good open world action. However I gotta be honest ME1's huge open worlds are kinda false advertising. ME1 may take longer, but much of that is just looking through a huge square of completely sterile, completely boring, environments. Sure riding the loopily balanced Mako and jumping off mountains was fun. The first time. It's appeal quickly went out the window and yet it never stopped, all game.

The heavy weapons? I care not for, as their presence cost me my modular and customizable grenades and my MAKO IFV.

You see this comment confuses me. Heavy weapons were far more varied than grenades were in ME1. There are only 4 types of grenade upgrades, arguably only 2 of which were actually useful. Also, as I stated above the Mako wore off it's appeal incredibly fast. Maybe if they varied up environments, or provided more interesting missions than: go to planet, kill everything in a single room, done.

See earlier point about loss of open world terrain. Mass Effect 1 felt like I game where I was exploring the galaxy in an epic space opera. Mass Effect 2 felt like a corridor shooter where I got to choose which corridor I would explore first. Oh, and rather than open world exploration, it featured the most mind-numbingly boring timesink minigame to ever exist in video game form, and toted that as an "improvement" over getting to rampage different maps in my almost flying tank.

Yeah the scanning is pretty dull, could use some improvement there. Personally I place it on the same level of meh as the Mako.

And for the combat being improved? HAH!

The whole point of an RPG is that it is a story of growth. Both in characterization and abilities. In ME1, you start with piss poor aim with all weapons, limited abilities, and all but nonexistant spellcasting powers, be they tech, biotic or just soldier cooldowns. By the end of the game, your aim is perfect with every shot a bullseye, you are a casting machine, and you are a veritable combat juggernaught. In short, they take and use the system that Deus Ex had, and it is PERFECT. By comparison,

I must respectfully disagree, the point of an RPG is to play a role. In this case you are playing the role of Commander Shepard, human badass. Already a war hero and in the running to be the first human spectre. Do you know how ridiculously immersion breaking it is when you are toted as some great soldier when you can't even aim a damn rifle?

Hell, I've shot a rifle before, I'm fairly certain I didn't wiggle around that much the first time I aimed the thing.

What is improved are your abilities. For casters I find it a bit laughable that you say one improves and one doesn't when each spell definitely gets bigger and better as the game goes on, and most caster classes have cooldown reduction in their passive skill. Basically, the casters do grow in power, rather dramatically too.

For the soldier classes, yeah you have a point there. The soldier just gets better ammo, a stronger missile, and one ability to make shooting things easier. But hell, I enjoyed him anyway. The ammo powers were fun to use, and Adrenaline Rush is one of the most useful things ever.

in ME2, all that happens as you level up is your skill powers get better.

This is all that happens in ME1 as well. More annoying when each skill power improvement is almost unnoticeable.

Your aim is consistantly the same throughout the game, so there is no feeling of improvement. Your damage upgrades come not from skill points and better guns in conjunction, but simply from your base gun + generic damage upgrades bought with tons and tons and TONS of iridium/platium/whatever. So rather than having the system to improve your guns built into the core gameplay mechanics, and be something that naturally happens as you progress, you have to take time away from your fun to go scroll thru planet after planet, trying to stay awake while listening for the tonals indicating that a probe should be launched.

The damage skills only gave a 34% increase in damage in ME1. Don't get me wrong 34% is nothing to sneeze at, but this is over the course of 36 levels of Soldier, for only 1 type of gun. It's another 12 levels to increase other types of guns to this level. This sucks. If it wasn't for the fact that Shepard aims like a twitchy 4 year old given his first slingshot while on a sugar high there's very little point in doing this as opposed to the far more useful options like the frankly gamebreaking Fitness line.

So in ME2 they put all that into the Combat Mastery, all guns increased up to 15% in 4 easy installments. Each point gives noticeable improvement to your weapons. Not as much, but faster. And yeah, the rest comes from upgrading your guns up to 60% more damage. But here's the thing. If you don't want to do this, go on an easier setting. The game is not hard. You do not need to get every upgrade. The three or so you pick up will be noticeable enough if you don't want to go searching for more resources.

In the first game, I could achieve the same effect (LOOT FOR THE LOOT GOD) while doing the sidequests and hunting thrsher maws in my MAKO.

You see this is I think where most of our problems come to a head. I don't give 2 ***** about loot. I'm still curious why the powerful and influential Shepard is acting line a scavenger throughout the game. Honestly if it wasn't for the fact that money is vital to improving your weapons I probably wouldn't pick up anything.

And on the subject of weapon upgrades, and by extension, ammo upgrades, let us suppose for a moment that I wanted to do a setup where for example, garrus snipes them with cold rounds to freeze them and then tali shotguns them with hammerhead rounds for a shatter. In ME1, all this takes is a moment in inventory. In ME2, if these chars don't have that ammo ability built into their class, then I am just sh*t out of luck. Meaning that rather than take who I want for flavor or fluff reasons, and then minmaxxing within that, I have to tailor my crew for each mission based on who can do what, not who I want to take.

Why don't you take who you want? That's what I did. Well sort of, my first run through I picked two random squadmates each time. Sure they're not optimal, but honestly Garrus/Tali was never optimal in ME1 either. While you wont pull off a cold/hammerhead tactic the two do bring up other useful tricks. Drone distractions, Overload-AI hack, they all make interesting tactics you can use and definite benefits to different characters, increasing their diversity while still making what you want viable.

As for the Thermal Clips? That will be my next post. I have an entire page worth of ranting for that.

Never quite got the hate myself. Where ridiculously common, easy to see, but meant you had to keep moving or switch up your weapons a bit in an effort to get you out of your comfort zone and keep the combat moving. They weren't implemented as best as they could be, but then the overheating system of ME1 was rather ridiculous to abuse with a sniper on any outdoor level.

iyaerP

2011-11-17, 05:26 AM

Okay, I have been typing this at work, and haven't been able to keep up with the current content of the thread, I will continue our wonderful discussion once I have had time to read the replies to me of which there appear to be several. Without further ado, here it is, my rant on Thermal Clips.

The mechanics of the gunplay in Mass Effect one were primarily dominated by three things. The dominance of regenerative shields but nonregenerative health, guns with infinite ammo but overheating problems, and the player's gun skill directly co-relating to how accurate they were with their weapon. In Mass Effect 2, this was changed to a "modern tactical" FPS system with both health and shields regenerating, guns having set ammo clips and needing to reload, and all guns having perfect aiming. Although this change made the game more popular with mainstream FPS audiences, from the perspective of an RPG setup which the first game definatively was and the second game was migrating away from, this served to diminish rather than improve the game as a whole.

The removal of medigel for healing, and repurposing it into your unity ressureciton was a change that although I resented it, was mostly arbitrary anyway. Not much of an overall gameplay change, but I preferred to have the Unity's mass ressurection ability as something that came at high level as a serious reward rather than just somehting you got right off the bat. The idea that a mechanic would come after long hours of not having it and thus serve as a reward is a core aspect of a Role Playing Game's levelling system. Here, as always, Mass Effect 2 chose to simplify it and provide it quite early on. It illustrates my point of easier gameplay != better gameplay, but is not an example that dramatically changes the core of the gameplay itself, so I shant dwell any more upon it.

The change from infinite ammo guns with overheating to guns limited by their supply of thermal clips is one that makes sense from a game-production standpoint, but fails to hold up its in-universe logic and hurts the player's ability to approach gameplay how they choose. From the stand point of Bioware, Mass Effect 1 was a commercial success and widely acclaimed amoung the RPG audience, but failed to resonate with dedicated shooter fans who make up the vast majority of today's video game consumer base. by changing that with ME2 and making it a highly touted point that they did so, they were able to achieve more market saturation and thus more profit. So from the company's standpoint, and that of much of the new prospective audience of the game, it made sense. For those of us who preferred the old system, the new one was painful, but bearable.

From an in-game standpoint, the logic is less sound. The justification provided here is that Geth studies of mass effect shielding combat show that whichever side can put more rounds downrange would more likely emerge victorious in a battle. Thus, were heatsinks born. Fair enough so far, but the logic starts to fail under scrutiny. For the purposes of this logic deconstruction, I will use pistols as an example. In Mass Effect 2, the rate at which your gun fires doesn't change over the course of the game. At the end of the game you could carry enough thermal clips for 24 rounds of heavy pistol fire, enough to fire for about half a minute continuously, with 4 pauses to change thermal clips. By contrast, by the end of Mass Effect 1, with the top pistol, you can put out as many rounds as the entire thermal clip supply for heavy pistols of ME2 in seven seconds(at which point your gun overheats). With the Marksmanship buff active, you can keep firing for almost a full minute, for something on the order of ~220 rounds downrange. Assuming that round for round, the Carnifex hand cannon is as lethal as the top end specter pistol from ME1(something that based on in game damage values of said weapons compared to their contemporary assult rifles and shotguns I am prepared to grant), the gun that can put more rounds downrange is clearly superior, and since the whole point of the heat sink changeover was to increase the number of rounds going downrange, this is clearly an example of either gameplay and story segregation or simply the devs not caring.

Furthermore, the Thermal Clip changeover adds another degree of complication that anyone with real world military experiance will tell you is one of the most important things to keep simple and easy out of all things. That is LOGISTICS. It is no exaduration to say that most wars are won more by the industrial base and supply lines of an army than by their better technology or witty tactics. Case in point? US Civil War. South had smaller population and next to no industrial base, but the most brilliant general of them all. The North had more population, more and better industry and a stronger infastructure with more and better rail-ways. Although General Lee was able to decisively defeat the various Northern Generals on numerous occasions, his lack of strong supply lines and ability to reinforce caused one defeat at Gettysburg to cost the South the war. Just one example of the importance of logistics. Another that is perhaps more relevant to the discussion on Thermal clips? During World War 2, different countries of the Allies used different guns and ammunition types. This meant that a British unit equipped primarily with SM Lee Enfields would be unable to resupply from an American unit carrying the M1 Garand. Today, to prevent logistical problems like this, all NATO countries, despite their different gun systems and patterns, all use the standardised NATO 5.56x45 round, so units can interchange ammo without worry. With this logic in mind, I can think of no reason that any future commander would wish to INCREASE the complication of logistical resupply and put a limit on their long term combat endurance by putting a hard cap on the number of rounds they can fire. A small increase in lethality would not be worth it to any serious military. In the event that more firepower is needed, special heavy weapons(one of my few things I liked about the ME2 combat system) exist for such a reason. Given the ME1 vs ME2 performance in number of rounds delivered downrange, the increase in logistical complications and the limited supply of thermal clips, I can't see why any army would switch over to them. It just fails to make any kind of sense.

Furthermore, even if the switch to thermal clips is endorsed and becomes an actual thing, why can't they just be reused? Instead of them shredding to bits after each reload, why not just swap the hot one out for a cool one, and only ever need 2? The only logical explanation I can think of is that the thermal clips are made out of some kind of ablating material that disintigrates into ash to shed the waste heat, but that would surely create a major maintinance issue in and of itself to say nothing of waste of resources. Also, if the guns are getting hot enough to ash something, how was it possible to simply air cool them in 3 or so seconds in the first game? It makes no sense. On a related note, why not simply manufacture more heatsinks using omnigel? Isn't that what our omnitools are for? To process omnigel from random crap into useable stuff at the molecular level? Shouldn't that obliviate the need to loot enemy corpses for thermal clips? Nothing about these damned things make a lick of sense.

From a gamplay perspective, I particularly dislike it because I favor three guns in game. The pistol and the sniper rifle, as befitting my favored class of infiltrator. The shotguns I used when up against close combat specialists like Krogan or husks that charge into melee. So only having enough pistol or sniper rounds for about half of any given fight in ME2? Not my favorite thing, especially since I would then have to switch over to thenigh-worhtless SMG, or charge into melee where I should decidedly not be. This did not amuse me.

TLDR: So in conclusion, while it makes sense from a company's standpoint in that it will be more profitable for Bioware to do so, none of the possible reasons given ingame are even the slightest bit logical or sound, and there are innumerable reasons against it.

TLDR;TLDR: F*cking Thermal Clips. How do they work? They ruined the shooty for me.

Zevox

2011-11-17, 05:52 AM

In Mass Effect 2, this was changed to a "modern tactical" FPS system with both health and shields regenerating, guns having set ammo clips and needing to reload, and all guns having perfect aiming. Although this change made the game more popular with mainstream FPS audiences, from the perspective of an RPG setup which the first game definatively was and the second game was migrating away from, this served to diminish rather than improve the game as a whole.
One thing I feel the need to address that may seem minor to you: you keep referring to ME2 as an "FPS." It is not. FPS stands for first-person shooter, and ME2 is third-person. Yes, this makes a huge difference - I probably wouldn't be playing Mass Effect if it were first-person, as I really don't like first-person gameplay mechanics.

Second, I'm repeating myself, but again, ME2 did not in the least move away from being an RPG. No matter what changes you may dislike, neither those changes nor your dislike make it less a part of the genre.

The removal of medigel for healing, and repurposing it into your unity ressureciton was a change that although I resented it, was mostly arbitrary anyway. Not much of an overall gameplay change, but I preferred to have the Unity's mass ressurection ability as something that came at high level as a serious reward rather than just somehting you got right off the bat. The idea that a mechanic would come after long hours of not having it and thus serve as a reward is a core aspect of a Role Playing Game's levelling system. Here, as always, Mass Effect 2 chose to simplify it and provide it quite early on. It illustrates my point of easier gameplay != better gameplay, but is not an example that dramatically changes the core of the gameplay itself, so I shant dwell any more upon it.
The medigel change was simply a matter of adapting to the overall mechanics change. Healing was automatic, so medigel was no longer needed for that. And ME2 was a much more lethal game than ME1, with characters tending to die from a few solid seconds of exposure to concentrated gunfire, so a means of resurrection was needed right off the bat, unlike in ME1 where you could wander around outside cover for extended periods and survive just fine. It's not an example of an improvement, but nor is it an example of a downgrade; it's just a difference.

And I won't be responding to the thermal clip rant, partly because I dislike them myself as well as I mentioned in my last post, partly because you seem to be getting into the in-world logic of them, which I already know is quite wonky.

Zevox

Acanous

2011-11-17, 05:59 AM

The whole "Geth made Thermal Clips look Good" thing didn't sit well with me either, until I thought of it like this:

the council and the Alliance are both militaries with easy access to high-end weaponry, which they can easilly supply troops with. Cerberus is a private, terroristic agency with less ready access to high-end weapons, but access to the black market meaning greater variety of weapons available.

So with the Alliance and the Council, all your weapons feel pretty much the same, per category. And you have really, really good built-in heat sinks that let you fire 220 shots downrange in a minute.

With Cerberus, they went with the more-publically-accessable, less built-in Thermal Clip, meaning losing a few soldiers, a few guns, or even a couple bases wouldn't cost them a whole lot of dakka. They could be easilly replaced.

So in ME2, you've got thermal clips, like every other band of mercs (And probably the low-grade grunts of most militaries) instead of the high-quality heat sink guns they give to SPECTREs. The people who manufacture the heat sinks are responcible for the pro-heat-sink propaganda.

iyaerP

2011-11-17, 06:08 AM

Except that Cerberus was able to reproduce the most secret and high tech bleeding edge Systems Alliance Stealth Frigate and IMPROVE UPON THE DESIGN.

But they have crappy black market small arms?

My disgust with Mass Effect 2 isn't just from the complete overhaul of the combat system. A lot of the story has ret cons and plot holes big enough to fly the Normandy through.

Why are we all of the sudden scared of the Skyllian Verge and the batarians? I remember in the first game one of the big reason for Shepard becoming a spectre is because the council is afraid of how powerful the human military has become and that it has done so so rapidly. Human expansionism and military growth is of great concern to the council races, who are far more powerful than anyone else. Regardless of your choices in the first game, by the start of the second, Humanity should be the dominant power of the Galaxy. Not a superpower by any means, but certainly the only race on equal standing with the rest of the Big Three.(now four with humans).

So why is it that we are afraid of the pirate races of the Skyllian Verge again? It sounds like it should be a simple case of the Barbary Coast War. Merchants and civvies are under pirate attack?

1:Send in proper military ships of the line.
2: CURB STOMP BATTLE ENSUES.
3: Pirates decide to GTFO and find easier pickings elsewhere.
3:???
4: PROFIT!

Acanous

2011-11-17, 08:39 AM

in the first case, Yes, Cerberus has Tech. But look at how they treat their line troops. They put COFFINS in the standard equiptment. They waste personnel, but they save the tech. Look at the ME2 tutorial sequence, where they abandon an entire base worth of people to die to mechs, but go out of their way to save Cybershep.

Cerberus seems like an organization that would equip their front line forces with merc-quality ordinance. If you have better, use it.

In the second, I believe it to be a case of inter-stellar supply lines. Mass Relays make travel nigh-instantanious between fixed points in the galaxy. The Alliance fleet can do all sorts of awesome because of this, like warp all their ships to the Citadel (Because it IS a mass relay). The downside, is that the pirates can do better hit-and-run because of it.

Moving through regular space is much slower than the mass relays. The Pirates sneak up on a world with hacked IFFs showing them as merchants. If the planet has good defences? They move along. Is it vulnerable? They attack. A signal goes out, the alliance figures out what ships they have available, another signal goes out, that ship turns and heads for a mass relay.

Meanwhile the Pirates have already finished a skirmish and started looting. By the time the Alliance ships hit the system, the Pirates have looped around to the "Entry" side of the mass relay, and warp out. Possibly even to hit the next system while this ship is now busy containing damage.

warty goblin

2011-11-17, 11:16 AM

Okay, I have been typing this at work, and haven't been able to keep up with the current content of the thread, I will continue our wonderful discussion once I have had time to read the replies to me of which there appear to be several. Without further ado, here it is, my rant on Thermal Clips.

The mechanics of the gunplay in Mass Effect one were primarily dominated by three things. The dominance of regenerative shields but nonregenerative health, guns with infinite ammo but overheating problems, and the player's gun skill directly co-relating to how accurate they were with their weapon.

And for the most part ME had a good system. I thought the starting accuracy should have been much higher, but it worked OK as a poor man's Halo: Combat Evolved.

In Mass Effect 2, this was changed to a "modern tactical" FPS system with both health and shields regenerating, guns having set ammo clips and needing to reload, and all guns having perfect aiming.

1st: Third person not third person (except for sniper rifles, which were first person in the first game as well). Big difference.
2nd: The guns didn't have perfect aiming, all they did was remove the pointless upgrading of the character's skill in something at which they should already be competent. RPG systems are only interesting when they add meaningful decisions, and the weapon progress in ME really did not. You pick one skill early, every level the optimum choice is to put more points into that skill. It's not interesting, and is only enjoyable if one enjoys watching bars fill.

Although this change made the game more popular with mainstream FPS audiences, from the perspective of an RPG setup which the first game definatively was and the second game was migrating away from, this served to diminish rather than improve the game as a whole.
From the perspective of being enjoyable to play, it was certainly a move in the right direction.

The change from infinite ammo guns with overheating to guns limited by their supply of thermal clips is one that makes sense from a game-production standpoint, but fails to hold up its in-universe logic and hurts the player's ability to approach gameplay how they choose. From the stand point of Bioware, Mass Effect 1 was a commercial success and widely acclaimed amoung the RPG audience, but failed to resonate with dedicated shooter fans who make up the vast majority of today's video game consumer base. by changing that with ME2 and making it a highly touted point that they did so, they were able to achieve more market saturation and thus more profit. So from the company's standpoint, and that of much of the new prospective audience of the game, it made sense. For those of us who preferred the old system, the new one was painful, but bearable.

I play a lot of shooters, and I play a lot of RPGs. Mass Effect was mechanically mediocre to average at both. The shooting started out painful and made its way to sort of decent. On the other hand the leveling was devoid of interesting decisions and the numerical increases were pretty much always offset by an equivalent increase in enemy power.

ME 2 had acceptable, but not remarkable, shooting, removed the pointless leveling, and borked up the story hardcore IMHO.

From an in-game standpoint, the logic is less sound. The justification provided here is that Geth studies of mass effect shielding combat show that whichever side can put more rounds downrange would more likely emerge victorious in a battle. Thus, were heatsinks born. Fair enough so far, but the logic starts to fail under scrutiny. For the purposes of this logic deconstruction, I will use pistols as an example. In Mass Effect 2, the rate at which your gun fires doesn't change over the course of the game. At the end of the game you could carry enough thermal clips for 24 rounds of heavy pistol fire, enough to fire for about half a minute continuously, with 4 pauses to change thermal clips. By contrast, by the end of Mass Effect 1, with the top pistol, you can put out as many rounds as the entire thermal clip supply for heavy pistols of ME2 in seven seconds(at which point your gun overheats). With the Marksmanship buff active, you can keep firing for almost a full minute, for something on the order of ~220 rounds downrange. Assuming that round for round, the Carnifex hand cannon is as lethal as the top end specter pistol from ME1(something that based on in game damage values of said weapons compared to their contemporary assult rifles and shotguns I am prepared to grant), the gun that can put more rounds downrange is clearly superior, and since the whole point of the heat sink changeover was to increase the number of rounds going downrange, this is clearly an example of either gameplay and story segregation or simply the devs not caring.
Or, radically enough, they're in the business of making fun games first, and thinking out the nth degree details of the made-up crap that comes with that a distant second. You want that kind of attention to detail, play DCS: A10-C, or Arma II.

Furthermore, the Thermal Clip changeover adds another degree of complication that anyone with real world military experiance will tell you is one of the most important things to keep simple and easy out of all things. That is LOGISTICS. It is no exaduration to say that most wars are won more by the industrial base and supply lines of an army than by their better technology or witty tactics. Case in point? US Civil War. South had smaller population and next to no industrial base, but the most brilliant general of them all. The North had more population, more and better industry and a stronger infastructure with more and better rail-ways. Although General Lee was able to decisively defeat the various Northern Generals on numerous occasions, his lack of strong supply lines and ability to reinforce caused one defeat at Gettysburg to cost the South the war. Just one example of the importance of logistics. Another that is perhaps more relevant to the discussion on Thermal clips? During World War 2, different countries of the Allies used different guns and ammunition types. This meant that a British unit equipped primarily with SM Lee Enfields would be unable to resupply from an American unit carrying the M1 Garand. Today, to prevent logistical problems like this, all NATO countries, despite their different gun systems and patterns, all use the standardised NATO 5.56x45 round, so units can interchange ammo without worry. With this logic in mind, I can think of no reason that any future commander would wish to INCREASE the complication of logistical resupply and put a limit on their long term combat endurance by putting a hard cap on the number of rounds they can fire. A small increase in lethality would not be worth it to any serious military. In the event that more firepower is needed, special heavy weapons(one of my few things I liked about the ME2 combat system) exist for such a reason. Given the ME1 vs ME2 performance in number of rounds delivered downrange, the increase in logistical complications and the limited supply of thermal clips, I can't see why any army would switch over to them. It just fails to make any kind of sense.
You're thinking way, way too hard about a universe where lowering the rest mass of a spaceship allows it to travel faster than light. I find that for generally fluffy sci-fi like Mass Effect a first level consistancy check is all that one can ask for, that is to say is there a reason for something, and, if you don't look at too closely, does that reason make some sort of sense.

In this case the reason I think passes that test. If you insist on a real world parallel, note that pretty much every remotely modern light or general purpose machine gun uses changeable barrels, which enable a much higher rate of fire than is possible with a fixed barrel. This is even though such guns use ammo faster and force fireteams to carry replacement barrels.

Furthermore, even if the switch to thermal clips is endorsed and becomes an actual thing, why can't they just be reused? Instead of them shredding to bits after each reload, why not just swap the hot one out for a cool one, and only ever need 2? The only logical explanation I can think of is that the thermal clips are made out of some kind of ablating material that disintigrates into ash to shed the waste heat, but that would surely create a major maintinance issue in and of itself to say nothing of waste of resources.
Also, if the guns are getting hot enough to ash something, how was it possible to simply air cool them in 3 or so seconds in the first game? It makes no sense. On a related note, why not simply manufacture more heatsinks using omnigel? Isn't that what our omnitools are for? To process omnigel from random crap into useable stuff at the molecular level? Shouldn't that obliviate the need to loot enemy corpses for thermal clips? Nothing about these damned things make a lick of sense.

Again, think way, way too hard.

From a gamplay perspective, I particularly dislike it because I favor three guns in game. The pistol and the sniper rifle, as befitting my favored class of infiltrator. The shotguns I used when up against close combat specialists like Krogan or husks that charge into melee. So only having enough pistol or sniper rounds for about half of any given fight in ME2? Not my favorite thing, especially since I would then have to switch over to thenigh-worhtless SMG, or charge into melee where I should decidedly not be. This did not amuse me.

This I agree with. As countless games have taught me the proper limit for assault rifle ammo is about 300 rounds, or 210 for the burst firing gun.

Pronounceable

2011-11-18, 10:40 AM

How come any online discussion even slightly related to Bioware always degenerate into yet another pointless Mass Effect slugfest?

I, for one, would like to have a Wild West RPG with every single western trope played to the hilt.

Giggling Ghast

2011-11-18, 12:15 PM

I, for one, would like to have a Wild West RPG with every single western trope played to the hilt.

You didn't care for Red Dead Redemption? Granted, that was more of a sandbox game than an RPG, but I would say it played Western tropes "to the hilt."

I wouldn't mind seeing a Weird West title myself, even though it's the least commercially viable genre out there.

Squark

2011-11-18, 12:25 PM

I think the real changes the Thermal clip system offered came from things that are harder to notice in game; Stopping power. I think that because the heat sinks (which aren't reusable because they use the heat to fuel an endothermic reaction within the clip. Once the clip is fused, you can't shove more heat into it) are disposable, they are able to amp up the stopping power of the guns a great deal. Which makes sense, given the faster pace of ME 2's combat. In-universe, if an ME 1 era gun was firing rounds at a ME 2 gun's power, the gun would overheat incredibly rapidly, forcing you to wait for it to cool down (and frankly, you don't want your equipment overheating ever. When things overheat, bad stuff happens). But by changing thermal clips, you can quickly stuff a new thermal clip in and keep on shooting.

Is it ultimately still a tacked-on solution? yes. But it really isn't quite as bad as the haters make it out to.

Really, though, we're splitting hairs here. The fact is, the key component of an RPG is an interactive story. Both Mass Effect games suceed in telling a story in which the player's choices have a real effect on the events and people within the game world, and, if what I've heard is any indication, these choices will really impact the story in ME3.

But, really, there's a thread for people to talk about Mass Effect games, and this isn't it.

warty goblin

2011-11-18, 03:32 PM

Really, though, we're splitting hairs here. The fact is, the key component of an RPG is an interactive story. Both Mass Effect games suceed in telling a story in which the player's choices have a real effect on the events and people within the game world, and, if what I've heard is any indication, these choices will really impact the story in ME3.

But, really, there's a thread for people to talk about Mass Effect games, and this isn't it.

I'd dispute the success of the MEs in regard to an interactive story: Alpha Protocol blows them out of the water in terms of choices actually having consequences, and the Witcher games do far more interesting and thought out things with the ideas of long-term fallout and non-player characters having their own agendas, plans and actually being competent.

Also I question the tastes of the selection panel for the VGAs. Any list that includes Dragon Age II as a contender for best RPG of the year and misses the Witcher II is a very strange list. I had picked up DAII a while ago cheap and gave it a quick play last night to see if it was less dull than the first one. I think the phrase 'virulently bad' does my experience justice.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 03:50 PM

Also I question the tastes of the selection panel for the VGAs. Any list that includes Dragon Age II as a contender for best RPG of the year and misses the Witcher II is a very strange list. I had picked up DAII a while ago cheap and gave it a quick play last night to see if it was less dull than the first one. I think the phrase 'virulently bad' does my experience justice.
Sheesh, you really are strange when it comes to Bioware games. Personally, unless Skyward Sword turns out to be the best thing since Ocarina of Time, Dragon Age 2 is my personal pick for Game of the Year.

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 03:55 PM

Sheesh, you really are strange when it comes to Bioware games. Personally, unless Skyward Sword turns out to be the best thing since Ocarina of Time, Dragon Age 2 is my personal pick for Game of the Year.

Zevox

Actually(and absolutely no offense intended), I'd say you're the odd man out here. A lot of my friends enjoyed the original DA, and some even were ok with the expansion Awakenings, but every last one of them, to a person, hated DA2. Combine that with a lot of DA2 hate on another major forum I frequent(Bethsoft), and I'd say that DA2 over-all was considered highly lackluster over-all, with little to no redeeming qualities.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 04:00 PM

Actually(and absolutely no offense intended), I'd say you're the odd man out here. A lot of my friends enjoyed the original DA, and some even were ok with the expansion Awakenings, but every last one of them, to a person, hated DA2. Combine that with a lot of DA2 hate on another major forum I frequent(Bethsoft), and I'd say that DA2 over-all was considered highly lackluster over-all, with little to no redeeming qualities.
I'm aware of the vast amounts of fan dumb surrounding DA2. My remark was more a combination of warty's previously-given opinions on other Bioware games, plus wanting to state my dissent on DA2's award-worthiness.

Zevox

Giggling Ghast

2011-11-18, 04:13 PM

The Witcher II didn't get a nomination because it's only available for PCs. The VGAs have always been slanted towards console-gaming.

Incidentally, DA2 is up for Best Song as well.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 04:15 PM

Incidentally, DA2 is up for Best Song as well.
Really :smallconfused: ? That's strange - I can't recall any standout songs from DA2. Though then again I tend not to notice the music in most games anyway, so that may just be me.

Zevox

Giggling Ghast

2011-11-18, 04:20 PM

Really :smallconfused: ? That's strange - I can't recall any standout songs from DA2. Though then again I tend not to notice the music in most games anyway, so that may just be me.

Oh, it's the end credits song, the re-done version of "I'm Not Calling You a Liar" by Florence and the Machine.

It probably won't win since it's up against the end song from Portal 2.

If a large amount of people dislike a game, there is obviously a valid reason somewhere, and it's not just "fan-dumb" on their part.

The game had some glaring flaws, to be sure. But there were people who decided to hate DA2 before it even came out. Even six months later, you hear people carry on as though Bioware anally raped an entire generation of gamers while their families were forced to watch.

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 04:20 PM

I'm aware of the vast amounts of fan dumb surrounding DA2. My remark was more a combination of warty's previously-given opinions on other Bioware games, plus wanting to state my dissent on DA2's award-worthiness.

Zevox

Hmm, if you meant that the way it sounds, that's pretty damn insulting of you. If a large amount of people dislike a game, there is obviously a valid reason somewhere, and it's not just "fan-dumb" on their part.

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 04:39 PM

Oh, it's the end credits song, the re-done version of "I'm Not Calling You a Liar" by Florence and the Machine.
You know a category is superfluous when the end credits song everyone skips is up for nomination.

Wait, looking at the list of Spike Video Game Awards on Wikipedia, they nominated Borderlands for RPG of 2009? Whaaa? Was Dragon Age: Origins and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story the only RPGs that came out that year or something? :smallconfused:

Giggling Ghast

2011-11-18, 04:45 PM

You know a category is superfluous when the end credits song everyone skips is up for nomination.

"I Want You Gone" is an end credits song!

Wait, looking at the list of Spike Video Game Awards on Wikipedia, they nominated Borderlands for RPG of 2009? Whaaa? Was Dragon Age: Origins and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story the only RPGs that came out that year or something? :smallconfused:

I do recall a derth of role-playing games that year.

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 04:53 PM

The game had some glaring flaws, to be sure. But there were people who decided to hate DA2 before it even came out. Even six months later, you hear people carry on as though Bioware anally raped an entire generation of gamers while their families were forced to watch.

Oh, I'll fully agree that some gamers hated on it just for hating's sake(primarily, from what I remember, because they felt that DA deserved another expansion first, and that the second game should not have been released so soon after the first and it's expansion), but, as you said, there were several glaring flaws that prevented it from being anywhere near the same quality the original DA had, which was very disappointing, and as I've said before, gave Bioware a very large strike in my book, along with Awakenings and it's potentially game-ending bug that they couldn't fix because of poor coding on their part.

So, no, I don't think it's deserving of any awards. On the other hand, if Skyrim is up, I'm personally hoping it wins. I haven't played it(Yet, should be getting it for my birthday from my wife in 2 weeks), but going by the fairly rave reviews I've been reading from fellow gamers, along with my best friend who does have it, and hasn't stopped singing it's praises since he got it at the midnight release(bastard is starting to piss me off(not really), just won't SHUT UP about it, making me wish I had a time-machine to get to my birthday already), it's obviously a very awesome game that is leaps and bounds above DA2.

polity4life

2011-11-18, 05:08 PM

Dear Bioware,

If you are truly going to showcase a new franchise and you read these boards, please let it be a World War I era Cthulu horror setting. I would really like to survive the Somme only to discover cosmic evil incarnate is trying to destroy reality. Oh, and the Golden Dawn actually casts magic. That would be fun.

With much love,

Polity4life

warty goblin

2011-11-18, 05:19 PM

I'm aware of the vast amounts of fan dumb surrounding DA2. My remark was more a combination of warty's previously-given opinions on other Bioware games, plus wanting to state my dissent on DA2's award-worthiness.

Zevox

I'm well aware of people hating on DAII for not being nearly identical to DA:O (which is probably the only reason I would consider fan-dumb in this case), and believe me that has nothing to do with why I didn't like it. As you may recall, I didn't really like DA:O that much either, so doing things differently from that game is hardly an axiomatic ill in my book.

I didn't like it because I thought the controls odd, the graphics and art terrible*, the combat a mess of sound and fury signifying very little, and the entire thing generally feeling rather lacklustre. Admittedly it was quite late and I didn't get very far, but the first impression was quite bad. However I would be very surprised if it turned out to be half the game Witcher 2 is in terms of story, setting and dialog. It does probably win on lip syncing though.

*Of course I had spent the evening playing Rage and Skyrim, so my immediate points of reference were quite high. That said Bioware really needs to take that engine out behind the barn and shoot it, then use some competently built middleware solution before 2005 calls and asks for its textures back.

Dear Bioware,

If you are truly going to showcase a new franchise and you read these boards, please let it be a World War I era Cthulu horror setting. I would really like to survive the Somme only to discover cosmic evil incarnate is trying to destroy reality. Oh, and the Golden Dawn actually casts magic. That would be fun.

With much love,

Polity4life

Play Necrovision. It's a mostly mediocre but absolutely crazy shooter about vampires fighting demons using zombies raised from all the corpses generated by WWI. Or something like that, I was never really clear on the details - all one really needs to know is that you can throw bayonets into dudes, and then retrieve them for further use later.

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 05:30 PM

"I Want You Gone" is an end credits song!
But did you skip it? :smalltongue:

(Haven't played Portal 2, but I'm assuming the end credits is roughly in the same vein as the first. With the Dragon Ages I thought the end credits song was always wildly out of place, and given how the credits take 20 mins or something I either skip or go do something else while they slowly tick down. I don't know why you'd give a separate award for Best Song in games, because if it fits then it's part of the soundtrack and if it doesn't then it's a bad song.)

Mx.Silver

2011-11-18, 05:47 PM

Dear Bioware,

If you are truly going to showcase a new franchise and you read these boards, please let it be a World War I era Cthulu horror setting.
So Shadow Hearts then? :smalltongue:

Zevox

2011-11-18, 06:33 PM

Hmm, if you meant that the way it sounds, that's pretty damn insulting of you. If a large amount of people dislike a game, there is obviously a valid reason somewhere, and it's not just "fan-dumb" on their part.
Bluntly, yes, it may have been, depending on why you hold the opinion you do. Now, Dragon Age 2 had its legitimate issues, such as too many bugs at launch (which have since mostly been patched out, thankfully) and the reuse of side-area maps (although if, as I suspect, that was due to the release being rushed by EA, I'd applaud Bioware for having their priorities in line there and focusing on the story and combat over that), and I can see someone thinking it isn't as good as its predecessor - many fans in our own DA2 threads disagreed with me on that, and that's perfectly fine. I have a very hard time believing a fan of DA1 could not like DA2 however, barring a handful of aspects that I understand may not appeal to everyone, like the overall harsh tone of the story. Much of the fan rage I've seen directed at it, such as for the changes to the combat system, is frankly unfounded (aside from revamping and re-balancing the skill system, the combat changed little, mostly just being sped up), and other complaints are far too minor to warrant the hate the game gets, such as the fact that the main character is always a human, or companion armor being preset. Still others I cannot credit at all, such as those who claim the writing was bad. And as Candle Jack pointed out, much of this was in full swing before the game even came out, which makes it even harder to give those types any credit.

So yes, I do not have any real respect for the vast majority of those who express hatred towards the game, and yes, consider it very much a case of a lot of fan-dumb.

I'm well aware of people hating on DAII for not being nearly identical to DA:O (which is probably the only reason I would consider fan-dumb in this case), and believe me that has nothing to do with why I didn't like it. As you may recall, I didn't really like DA:O that much either, so doing things differently from that game is hardly an axiomatic ill in my book.
I'm aware - that part of my remark was in response to Starwulf citing fan hatred of the game specifically, not your remarks.

I didn't like it because I thought the controls odd, the graphics and art terrible*, the combat a mess of sound and fury signifying very little, and the entire thing generally feeling rather lacklustre. Admittedly it was quite late and I didn't get very far, but the first impression was quite bad. However I would be very surprised if it turned out to be half the game Witcher 2 is in terms of story, setting and dialog. It does probably win on lip syncing though.
Well, I cannot speak to the controls since you're on the PC version and I use the 360. The graphics and art is simply a case of subjectivity, so not much point in arguing with you there, although I of course disagree. Can't say I understand what you mean with the combat at all though.

If you're basing your judgment on a very short try of the game though there's not much to discuss one way or the other, as you can't have seen most of the details of any aspect of it. That's not to say that you deciding that the game isn't for you based on a short try isn't perfectly valid - I've done the same with plenty of games myself - but I do think that claiming that the game on the whole is "virulently bad" based on that little would be very invalid.

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 06:45 PM

Bluntly, yes, it may have been, depending on why you hold the opinion you do. Now, Dragon Age 2 had its legitimate issues, such as too many bugs at launch (which have since mostly been patched out, thankfully) and the reuse of side-area maps (although if, as I suspect, that was due to the release being rushed by EA, I'd applaud Bioware for having their priorities in line there and focusing on the story and combat over that), and I can see someone thinking it isn't as good as its predecessor - many fans in our own DA2 threads disagreed with me on that, and that's perfectly fine. I have a very hard time believing a fan of DA1 could not like DA2 however, barring a handful of aspects that I understand may not appeal to everyone, like the overall harsh tone of the story. Much of the fan rage I've seen directed at it, such as for the changes to the combat system, is frankly unfounded (aside from revamping and re-balancing the skill system, the combat changed little, mostly just being sped up), and other complaints are far too minor to warrant the hate the game gets, such as the fact that the main character is always a human, or companion armor being preset. Still others I cannot credit at all, such as those who claim the writing was bad. And as Candle Jack pointed out, much of this was in full swing before the game even came out, which makes it even harder to give those types any credit.

So yes, I do not have any real respect for the vast majority of those who express hatred towards the game, and yes, consider it very much a case of a lot of fan-dumb.
Zevox

Well, speaking for myself, and for my friends, we've played the game, we just didn't like it. The bugs at launch were horrendous, and even though it was EA that rushed Bioware, Bioware should have had the damn guts to stand up to them and tell them "no, we aren't going to release a shoddy product". I'm a big disliker of Obsidian as well, even though many people Herald them as one of the last Bastion of good RPG makers, because of their shoddy output on NWN2 and Fall-out New Vegas, both of which were horribly bug-ridden, NWN2 of which was SO bug-ridden that it took 13 patches before it was actually playable without game-breaking bugs popping up.

The rest of our dislike are what you consider "Minor" things, but which we personally don't. An PRG is about customization, and the lack of such in your companions, and yes, that you HAVE to play a human, which was a step-back from DA:O, in which you could play Dwarf, Human, or Elf. I'm a HUUUUUGGGEEE fan of choice, and taking it away just pisses me off.

I can't comment on the other forum users from Bethsoft that express hatred for it, as I don't personally know them, but I know that for me and my group of friends, we just didn't like or enjoy DA2 at all. Perhaps if Bioware had exhibited any sign of a spine and told EA "No, we won't put out a sequel to a game less then 2 years after we released the first one", it might have been significantly better, and not have warranted out dislike, but they didn't, and have no-one to blame but themselves.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 06:49 PM

An PRG is about customization,
No, no it is not. Customization can be one aspect of RPGs, but it is very far from their defining trait. Hell, plenty of RPGs don't include any such customization, simply having the pre-made characters level up in a pre-set fashion altogether (mostly JRPGs, but some western ones do this as well, and in either case they're still RPGs).

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 06:59 PM

No, no it is not. Customization can be one aspect of RPGs, but it is very far from their defining trait. Hell, plenty of RPGs don't include any such customization, simply having the pre-made characters level up in a pre-set fashion altogether (mostly JRPGs, but some western ones do this as well, and in either case they're still RPGs).

Zevox

Ehh, you're splitting hairs now. even in JRPGs, you have the customization of what equipment to put on your characters, even if you can't pick their skills or stats when they level up. If you want though, I'll be more specific: One of the most important things for MANY(but not all!) rpgs, is Customization, in ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. Better? :)

Zevox

2011-11-18, 07:04 PM

Ehh, you're splitting hairs now. even in JRPGs, you have the customization of what equipment to put on your characters, even if you can't pick their skills or stats when they level up. If you want though, I'll be more specific: One of the most important things for MANY(but not all!) rpgs, is Customization, in ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. Better? :)
Not really, no. As I said, is an aspect of some RPGs - "one of the most important things" of any it is not. That's simply not what defines the genre. It may be your favorite aspect, but that doesn't mean it's what causes those games to get that label.

(On JRPG equipment, that equipment often simply scales with level - you buy new equipment because you have to in order to keep your stats up, and all of the new equipment you find is just statistically better or worse than what you have. It's not a really a matter of customization at all in most cases, especially since in no JRPG I can think of does it affect your appearance rather than just your stats. Well, okay, many in the past couple of console generations do give unique appearances to different weapons, but never armor.)

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 07:13 PM

Not really, no. As I said, is an aspect of some RPGs - "one of the most important things" of any it is not. That's simply not what defines the genre.

(On JRPG equipment, that equipment often simply scales with level - you buy new equipment because you have to in order to keep your stats up, and all of the new equipment you find is just statistically better or worse than what you have; it's not a really a matter of customization at all in most cases, especially since in no JRPG I can think of does it affect your appearance rather than just your stats. Well, okay, many in the past couple of console generations do give unique appearances to different weapons, but never armor.)

Zevox

And I continue to disagree. Even in one of the earliest RPGs, Final Fantasy(Literally, the definition of a JRPG), you have customization: You have to pick which white and black spells to take, as you have a limited amount of slots that you can put them in. In other games, you can choose to be a Sword and board warrior, or go with a great-axe to deal more damage. You can wield a scepter and shield on your mage, or go with the Staff for overwhelming magical power. And that's just spell and equipment based! Other games allow you to customize stats upon level up, they allow you to allocate skill-points, they even let you pick which people you want to be in your party, which btw, The Original Final Fantasy has as well: Red Mage, White Mage, Black Mage, Thief, Warrior, Monk. Dragon Warrior, another classic and genre defining JRPG, allows you the CUSTOMIZATION of picking your party mates in the 3rd one and on.

I'm sorry, but I just flat out disagree with you. Customization in RPGs has been around since the beginning, and to me, that makes it an important, AND DEFINING aspect of the Genre. Along with a great storyline, and exploration of a world, whether it be linear or open-world. All of those things, and more, make an RPG and RPG. You remove one, and Yes, you will still technically have an RPG, but it's not going to be as good as it can be, which is one of my dislikes(as I've already said) of DA2.

in the end, to say that Customization is not a defining aspect of RPGs, is just very, very wrong imo. Disagree if you want, but even classic games will disagree with your disagreement, as I've already shown.

Edit: Hell, let me continue giving examples: Secret of Mana, another JRPG, gives you the choice of which weapon to use, at any time in the game. Chrono Trigger gives you the choice of equipment and which party members you want in your group. Nearly(if not all) every Final Fantasy ever made allows you to choose which characters you want in your party. Secret of Evermore gives you the ability to customize your alchemy(spells) in different ways. All of those are classic JRPGs, and stand-out games in the genre, and all of them offer some form of customization, no matter how small it may be. I could go all day long on the various games, JRPG and not that give customization. When it is in that many games, it is a defining aspect of the genre, sorry.

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 07:15 PM

It's nigh impossible to think of an exclusive list of properties that an RPG game has to have to qualify as an RPG. Every rule stating an RPG has to have X has an obvious exception.

For me, I liked not having to play quartermaster for the team in DA2. In most PC RPGs I spend a tedious portion of the game shuffling inventory around. I wouldn't mind them streamlining that aspect more if it frees up more time to work on the rest of the game.

DA2 had issues due to the obvious rushed development time, most seriously with the main storyline. I'd still say it's a good game, with my main issues due to what it could have been with a bit more story tweaking.

Sith_Happens

2011-11-18, 07:17 PM

Hey Bioware, just make Jade Empire 2 already. You know you want to.

Maybe the new game is Jade Empire 2... IN THE FUTURE!!!!!! Using your awesome martial arts skills to catch machine gun fire and blow up jeeps by punching them? I'd play it.:smallbiggrin:

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 07:22 PM

Mx.Silver

2011-11-18, 07:33 PM

Also I question the tastes of the selection panel for the VGAs. Any list that includes Dragon Age II as a contender for best RPG of the year and misses the Witcher II is a very strange list. I had picked up DAII a while ago cheap and gave it a quick play last night to see if it was less dull than the first one. I think the phrase 'virulently bad' does my experience justice.

The VGAs are an unfunny joke and have been basically since they began - hence why nobody really cares about them. In the sake of fairness though, The Witcher 2 had/has some pretty big problems as well - particularly on launch.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 07:51 PM

And I continue to disagree. Even in one of the earliest RPGs, Final Fantasy(Literally, the definition of a JRPG), you have customization: You have to pick which white and black spells to take, as you have a limited amount of slots that you can put them in.
First, Final Fantasy is not "literally the definition of a JRPG." If anything, that would be Dragon Quest, the first of which pre-dates Final Fantasy, and which did not include any real customization until the introduction of a class system in 3 (which has only been in the series sporadically since, disappearing in 4, 5, and 8) and the skill system in 8. Second, Final Fantasy's magic system is a result of partial inspiration from D&D (you'll notice the obvious similarities to the vancian system), was very minor (white and black mages got 4 spells per level to pick from and 3 slots, Red mages usually had 4 per level, occasionally one more or one less, so your "customization" there amounted to picking one spell from each bunch that you wouldn't use), and you'll notice that it was dropped in subsequent games in the series.

And I can point you to other JRPGs lacking any such customization, such as Chrono Trigger and Radiant Historia. Plus others with only very minor features that could be considered customization, like Tales of Symphonia (only the ability to skew character skills towards T-type or S-type applies), or Skies of Arcadia (only the ability to affect which type of magic each character learns applies, and half of the time that's incidental since it's linked to the type of damage your weapon is set to deal and you usually want to set it to the type that will get a bonus against the enemies you're fighting).

In other games, you can choose to be a Sword and board warrior, or go with a great-axe to deal more damage. You can wield a scepter and shield on your mage, or go with the Staff for overwhelming magical power.
Not in most JRPGs - in most each character has their personal weapon type, and those weapons simply get better as the game progresses. Any real choices to the equipment does not exist, outside of stupidly opting to keep using inferior equipment after getting better ones.

Other games allow you to customize stats upon level up, they allow you to allocate skill-points,
Not in the vast majority of JRPGs. The only example of that I can think of is that you can do that with your main character (and only your main character, nobody else) in the Shin Megami Tensei series (and not even the entire SMT series, as your stats in Persona 3 and 4 are entirely based on your Personas, which get random boosts on level up).

they even let you pick which people you want to be in your party,
And it's a real stretch to call that "customization," it's just a matter of most RPGs including more party members than active combat slots. Especially in most JRPGs, where you don't pick which people join you over the course of the game, they simply do when you reach a pre-set point in the story. Outside of games that let you add monsters to the party (i.e. Dragon Quest 5 and the Shin Megami Tensei main series) or let you create new party members wholesale (Dragon Quest 3 and 9, the Disgaea series), that's not really customization.

I'm sorry, but I just flat out disagree with you. Customization in RPGs has been around since the beginning, and to me, that makes it an important, AND DEFINING aspect of the Genre. Along with a great storyline, and exploration of a world, whether it be linear or open-world. All of those things, and more, make an RPG and RPG. You remove one, and Yes, you will still technically have an RPG, but it's not going to be as good as it can be, which is one of my dislikes(as I've already said) of DA2.
And you simply are wrong. The only aspects that really tie all RPGs together are their heavy focus on their storylines and the inclusion of some system whereby the character(s) gain power over time - usually a level up system, sometimes more equipment-based, or sometimes weird stuff like FFX's sphere grid; it can vary. Customization simply is not present in all games that get called RPGs, and therefore could not possibly be a defining aspect of them.

Zevox

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 08:02 PM

And I did agree(or should I say, further clarified my opinion) that not all RPGs have customization, but that many do, and that if many have something, it can be considered a defining characteristic of it, with of course, several exceptions.
How exactly are you defining "customisation" though? A lot of what you've listed for early JRPGs is less than what's in DA2. In DA2 you get to choose the class of the main character, Hawke's dialog choices, who is in the party at a particular time, weapons for all party members, to a limited* extent the resolution of quests, and relationship values with party members.

The other problem with picking "customisation" as your RPG metric is that there's a whole bunch of non-RPG games with loads of customisation. I didn't think Lego Racers was a more "RPG-like" game because it allowed to build your own car. :smalltongue:

Really the only thing that's mostly constant in RPGs that springs to mind is the stats level up mechanic through experience, and I'm not even sure that's universal.

* Too limited, at least in how it's presented, which is my main beef with DA2 over other Bioware RPGs.

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 08:12 PM

And you simply are wrong. The only aspects that really tie all RPGs together are their heavy focus on their storylines and the inclusion of some system whereby the character(s) gain power over time - usually a level up system, sometimes more equipment-based, or sometimes weird stuff like FFX's sphere grid; it can vary. Customization simply is not present in all games that get called RPGs, and therefore could not possibly be a defining aspect of them.

Zevox

And with that, I end this discussion. Telling me you disagree is one thing, but that I'm flat out wrong is another. I've specifically avoided coming right out and saying that, in order to continue the discussion, but if you're puttig it in black and white, I'm done, and if So, if you want to go there, YOU ARE WRONG. hell, I already mentioned Chrono Trigger, and you try to use that to prove your point, but it does have customization: The ability to choose which characters you want in your party. As I said, I could go on, all freaking day long with a list of RPGs a mile long that have some form of customization, at one level or another.

To the poster below Mr.You'rewrongI"mRightguy: I consider customization to be anything that gives you some modicum of control over the game, be it in the form of which equipment to wear(which even Dragon Quest had, as well as the choice of which area to explore at what time), to the ability to choose where you explore, to the characters you have in your party, to stat and skill point allocation. All of those are a form of customization, no matter how small, and it's an aspect that I've enjoyed in RPGs since I was 5, when I first played Final Fantasy on the NES.

Also, I posed this question to my best friend online, and this is his response:

darkwulf99: I pose a question to you my friend
darkwulf99: Would you consider Customization a defining aspect of RPGs? In any shape or form. Doesn't have to strictly be in the way of skill and stat points, but also in choosing your party members out of a larger pool then you can have, and then their equipment as well?
XXXXX: hmm
XXXXX: it's debatable
XXXXX: traditionally, yes, there needs to be some aspect of the character(s) you control that you have some amount of customizability over
XXXXX: but if you dissect the words "role-playing game", it leaves it wide open for interpretation
XXXXX: at its broadest definition, ANY game could be a "role-playing" game
XXXXX: because you're taking on the role of some character that's been set out for you
XXXXX: but that hasn't been what the "RPG" genre has ever been about
XXXXX: it's always been about taking the role of a character and enhancing the character (and his party, if any) in some or many ways
XXXXX: so, in MY opinion, yes, there has to be at least a modicum of customization, be it the character himself, or his party, or both.. equipment isn't a defining factor, but it's generally included
XXXXX: i'd be miffed if there wasn't a variety of equipment to choose from

Edit: Also, I only have been using JRPGs as examples, because Zevox chose them to refute my point, but I"ll be damned, JRPGs are what I grew up on, I have a list of several hundred that I've beaten, and a damn large % of them offer some form of customization in one way or another. Yes, I realize they have less customization then DA2, but that wasn't my gripe. My gripe was that DA2 took away choices that were there in the first game, because bioware didn't have a spine and refused to tell EA to give them more time so they could release a quality game. It's not like Bioware isn't a very well-known quantity. They have sold games just based on their name attached for quite a while. They MORE then have the leverage to tell their publisher to stuff it, that they aren't going to release a shoddy game with less options and re-used maps, at least for a while. If they had a lesser track record, I could understand, but their track-record up until Awakenings and DA2 was pretty well spotless.

Double Edit: Also, while I've been given examples to support my side, besides the mention of the original Dragon Quest, You haven't given a single example to support your side of the argument. I've given my proof, the burden is now on you to give some of your own.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 08:27 PM

And with that, I end this discussion. Telling me you disagree is one thing, but that I'm flat out wrong is another.
And normally I wouldn't do so, but I can think of no other way to put it in this case. If an aspect is demonstrably absent from some games in a genre, then it truly cannot be the case that is a defining trait of that genre. Otherwise those games lacking it would not be considered part of that genre at all.

hell, I already mentioned Chrono Trigger, and you try to use that to prove your point, but it does have customization: The ability to choose which characters you want in your party.
And as I pointed out, that is not real customization. It doesn't really change anything. You always have the same party members each time you play, they always level up the same and gain the same powers over time, different equipment is just better or worse - Chrono Trigger just does not have any real customization aspects to it.

To the poster below Mr.You'rewrongI"mRightguy: I consider customization to be anything that gives you some modicum of control over the game,
That is a seriously over-broad definition of customization. Any aspect of gameplay necessarily gives you some form of control over the game, right down to something as simple as the ability to choose between multiple different attacks in battle. Customization is more something that lets you change the way some aspect of the game works so that it won't always be the same, such as choosing different skills for characters to learn (when you won't be able to learn all of them by the end at least), or in cases where different equipment actually functions differently (for instance, the different weapons of each type in Mass Effect 2) the selection of equipment.

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 08:58 PM

And normally I wouldn't do so, but I can think of no other way to put it in this case. If an aspect is demonstrably absent from some games in a genre, then it truly cannot be the case that is a defining trait of that genre. Otherwise those games lacking it would not be considered part of that genre at all.

Zevox

And I disagree. A defining characteristic doesn't have to be present in every single game of the genre, just in the majority, and in the vast majority of RPGs I've played, and/or read about, there has been customization in one way or another

Let's put it this way: A monarchy is usually ruled by a King. That is a defining characteristic of a Monarchy. BUT, there have been queens throughout history in various monarchies. That doesn't lessen the fact that when you think of monarchies, you think of kings. It just means that sometimes there are anomalies, exceptions to the rule. Same with religion. When you think religion, you think of a belief in a higher power, in one form or another. There are exceptions, some religions believe the higher power is us, but in the vast majority of religions, it's about a higher power. That would make "A higher power" a defining characteristic of religion. There will always be exceptions to EVERYTHING, but that doesn't lessen the fact that there is going to be a defining characteristic involved that you automatically think of when you think about it.

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 09:18 PM

And I disagree. A defining characteristic doesn't have to be present in every single game of the genre, just in the majority,
Wait, what? :smallconfused: A defining characteristic by definition is one distinctive enough that the presence of that characteristic is enough to classify it in the group (Wiktionary def link) (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defining_characteristic). The defining characteristic of a monarchy is rule by a monarch. Why are you arguing "defining" doesn't mean "defining"? :smallconfused:

If you handed me a game and said "this has tons of customisation", I'm not going to immediately assume it's an RPG. Some RPGs have limited customisation, and plenty of non-RPGs have loads of customisation. It's not a defining characteristic.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 09:26 PM

And I disagree. A defining characteristic doesn't have to be present in every single game of the genre, just in the majority, and in the vast majority of RPGs I've played, and/or read about, there has been customization in one way or another

Let's put it this way: A monarchy is usually ruled by a King. That is a defining characteristic of a Monarchy.
But that's wrong. A Monarchy is ruled by a monarch, meaning a single ruler. If it is male, then it is a king; if female, a queen. Occasionally different cultures use other terms for the ruler, such as sultans in the middle east, but they're nonetheless monarchs. The defining trait there is that there is a single ruler who wields most or all of the political power over the nation (hence why there is a further distinction for countries which still have titular monarchs but give most or all of their power to others, Constitutional Monarchies) and is part of some kind of royal family, not the term given to that ruler.

Same with religion. When you think religion, you think of a belief in a higher power, in one form or another. There are exceptions, some religions believe the higher power is us, but in the vast majority of religions, it's about a higher power.
I cannot think of any religion that believes that "the higher power is us" myself. But theoretically allowing that some exist, that would disqualify that specifically as the defining trait of religion - rather you would have to say something to the effect that religions are systems of belief in something unproven.

There will always be exceptions to EVERYTHING, but that doesn't lessen the fact that there is going to be a defining characteristic involved that you automatically think of when you think about it.
You appear to be using a different definition of "defining characteristic" than I, somehow. Something being a "defining characteristic" means that it is the trait that causes something to be defined a certain way. It is always present, no exceptions. For instance, the defining characteristics of first-person shooters are, well, what the name says: a first-person perspective and shooting-focused gameplay mechanics. Thus why third-person shooters get considered a separate sub-genre. Most genres are like that, with the name clearly stating the defining characterstics - action, platforming, horror, etc; it's all obvious from the name.

With RPGs we simply have the problem that the name of the genre was co-opted from tabletop RPGs, and video game RPGs differ (sometimes greatly) from tabletop ones, so the name doesn't accurately reflect the traits that cause games to get defined as RPGs, leading to those being less obvious, leading to arguments like this. But as long as those traits are not universal to the RPG genre, they cannot be the defining characters of that genre, i.e. the reason those games get defined as RPGs. And customization is not universal to RPGs, merely common (and is in fact common to some extent or another in a lot of genres when you think about it).

Zevox

iyaerP

2011-11-18, 09:43 PM

To be fair, most of us put JRPGs in a seperate category from real RPGs anyway, and that is one of the big reasons why.

Another big one is that JRPGs tend not to have your as the player's actions affect how the story unfolds. You are just playing through a script.

Where in say, the Witcher, despite having simularities to a JRPG in a set protagonist with no customization of the visual aesthetics, but a great deal of customization in the gamplay mechanics of combat, differs in that how you play through strongly impacts how the story unfolds.

The Witcher is also unique in that unlike most RPG systems, the moral choices aren't "satanicly evil" vs "angelicly noble, pure and good", but rather grey on grey views of morality with both sides having points in their favor as well as atrocities committed by their members. And having any moral choice system that impacts game and story is pretty non-JRPG.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 09:58 PM

To be fair, most of us put JRPGs in a seperate category from real RPGs anyway, and that is one of the big reasons why.
You mean western RPGs. Both are very much so real, they simply have stylistic differences.

Another big one is that JRPGs tend not to have your as the player's actions affect how the story unfolds. You are just playing through a script.
This isn't unique to JRPGs. For instance, The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age follows a completely pre-set story, even though it's a western RPG.

Zevox

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 10:09 PM

You mean western RPGs. Both are very much so real, they simply have stylistic differences.
These days I'm not sure where the distinction between the western and eastern varieties begin. Bioware's RPGs in particular feel like the fall somewhere between the two divisions.

Although outside the niche indie market I'm not sure if there are any of the old fashioned Wizardry style western RPGs around these days. Ironically enough the closest I've played recently is Dragon Quest IX.

Zevox

2011-11-18, 10:19 PM

These days I'm not sure where the distinction between the western and eastern varieties begin. Bioware's RPGs in particular feel like the fall somewhere between the two divisions.
:smallconfused: What could you possibly mean by that? Bioware's RPGs are about the best example of WRPGs I can think of - blank-slate main characters, attempts at giving the player the illusion of influence over the plot, constant dialogue choices, the works.

Zevox

Starwulf

2011-11-18, 11:09 PM

Hmm, perhaps that is where our disagreement is stemming from. I might be using the wrong terminology here. I consider Customization to be present in enough RPGs, for it to be considered a mainstay of them. It's in virtually every RPG game I've ever played, and /or read about. I'm not sure what word/term I would want to use then, but when I think of RPGs, I immediately associate them with the following words: Choice(less this, because many rpgs are linear), Customization(very much this, as I've argued in my last half a dozen posts), Storyline, level progression, and sprawling world to explore. My mind doesn't want to come up with a word/term for that, so if you would like to provide one, please do, Ill admit that I was likely using the term "Defining Characteristic" wrongly, but my argument still stands that RPGs in general contain customization a significant amount of the time, and when you take that away, it is never a good thing, and that is one of my major gripes with Bioware(especially when, as I've said before, a bit of a backbone on their part, could have solved the whole issue).

Also, I'll agree with you, that Bioware games are the epitome of Western RPGs. I think a better developer to say falls in the middle ground, is Bethesda Softworks and the Elder Scroll series. Your character isn't necessarily a blank slate(considering you always play a character who has been foretold of in the actual Elder Scrolls), but you have a large and significant impact on the game world through your actions, and you're not set in a linear progression whatsoever, which is a hallmark of JRPGs(being on a set-path, though even that isn't always true. You mentioned Dragon Warrior(Well, Quest, but I"ll forever know it as Dragon Warrior) earlier Zevox. I actually consider that to be the precursor of Open World games. Once you un-locked the bottom half of the map(or bottom 3/4's more like), you have free reign of the entire map, able to go wherever you want, and fight whatever you want, visit whatever town you want. As long as you don't mind fighting enemies to strong for you(ie: willing to grind), you can go the hardest place in the game and fight there, long before you have Eldrics Armor/sword, or rescued the princess. That's pretty open world like if ya ask me ^^(and goes to show that not even JRPGs can be buttonholed into a neat little category). This is actually a hallmark of many Dragon Warrior/Quest games, though many modern incarnations require you to make it through most of the chapters before the entire map is open to you to travel wherever you wish

Trazoi

2011-11-18, 11:26 PM

:smallconfused: What could you possibly mean by that? Bioware's RPGs are about the best example of WRPGs I can think of - blank-slate main characters, attempts at giving the player the illusion of influence over the plot, constant dialogue choices, the works.
Old style RPGs from the mid 90s or earlier typically weren't like that (well apart from the blank-slate characters). You had a party (usually but not always built yourself) and set out to explore with minimal direction. The game mainly consisted of an endless series of unforgiving turn-based battles. The plot was roughly "kill the evil wizard".

The latest Elder Scrolls are closer to that than the Bioware games, because they're all about exploring the world, whereas the Bioware games are more about the characters and plot.

The thing is, I don't know what the definition of "Western RPG" and "Eastern RPG" are. If it's "RPGs made in the West or East", then duh, but that's not a meaningful distinction :smallsmile:. If it's "Western RPGs are like the Baldur's Gate series, Eastern RPGs are like the Final Fantasy series" then yes, Bioware games are most like Bioware games. :smalltongue:

Starwulf

2011-11-19, 12:08 AM

Old style RPGs from the mid 90s or earlier typically weren't like that (well apart from the blank-slate characters). You had a party (usually but not always built yourself) and set out to explore with minimal direction. The game mainly consisted of an endless series of unforgiving turn-based battles. The plot was roughly "kill the evil wizard".

The latest Elder Scrolls are closer to that than the Bioware games, because they're all about exploring the world, whereas the Bioware games are more about the characters and plot.

The thing is, I don't know what the definition of "Western RPG" and "Eastern RPG" are. If it's "RPGs made in the West or East", then duh, but that's not a meaningful distinction :smallsmile:. If it's "Western RPGs are like the Baldur's Gate series, Eastern RPGs are like the Final Fantasy series" then yes, Bioware games are most like Bioware games. :smalltongue:

From my time spent over on the Bethsoft forums, I think I can answer that: Western RPGs are traditionally Open World RPGs, with characters that have no actual pre-involvement with the storyline. They are what you make of them, whether that be a world-saving hero, or a manipulate everyone behind the scenes bad guy. And, it's not so much "eastern" rpgs, as it is just..JRPGs, or Japanese RPGs(which doesn't necessarily mean they all come from Japan), in which your character is usually the predestined hero, foretold to save the entire world. You do so in a linear-fashion, progressing from one spot to another until you reach the end of the game, with little to no stops along the way outside of the predetermined path.

TL;DR: WRPGs are generally non-linear and blank-slate characters. JRPGs are linear and the hero is well-tied into the plot. Which is why I consider Bethsoft TES games to be the middle-ground between the two. Your Hero isn't blank-slate, as the Elder Scrolls have already foretold of your coming, BUT, the world is not linear in any sense of the word and is entirely Open World., and while the Elder Scrolls told of your coming, they don't say anything about whether or not you're going to save the world just to bring it under your own thumb(if you so choose to play it that way ^^)

iyaerP

2011-11-19, 12:40 AM

I think that western RPGs are less "The hero isn't well tied into the plot" and more "your decisions as hero as they effect the plot aren't pre-determined by the writers."

IE; you have choices.

Edit for Addendum to avoid doubleposting.

Take Baldur's Gate series. It is the gold plated Father, Son and Holy Ghost standard that all other western RPGs are judged. You tie in so closely to the plot that the series from beginning to end could basically be titled "The tale of XXXXX's Ascent to godhood. A biography." where XXXXX is you the PC. You don't get tied in much closer to the plot than that. Also, any game that has Alan Rickman as the voice actor for the primary antagonist? PURE GOLD.

Zevox

2011-11-19, 01:05 AM

but my argument still stands that RPGs in general contain customization a significant amount of the time, and when you take that away, it is never a good thing, and that is one of my major gripes with Bioware(especially when, as I've said before, a bit of a backbone on their part, could have solved the whole issue).
I would disagree with you there, I think sometimes taking away customization can be a very good thing. I'm personally of the opinion that blank-slate style main characters are inferior to pre-defined ones entirely, due to being harder to write good stories around since you have to account for different types of actions they could take, instead of writing a story arc that meaningfully explores the character. So in general I'd be in support of things like Bioware making the main character of DA2 only a human, as defining at least that trait of the character helps them write the story more specifically for that character (and they did to at least some degree - Hawke's family history allowed her to become a noble after the first act, and with the xenophobia of Kirkwall it's highly unlikely that a non-human character could have done anything like that, and also due to that xenophobia one wonders whether she would have been so eagerly embraced as champion had she been non-human).

I also support Bioware's decision vis-a-vis companion armor in DA2. I prefer giving characters a unique look to a customizable one, as it helps make them more memorable, and while I think it might have been a better decision to let them use armor and just not have it change their appearance I'm guessing Bioware probably considered that and just weren't comfortable with the gameplay-story separation aspect there. They've never done equippable armor that didn't affect appearance before, at least as far back as KotOR (which is the earliest game of theirs that I've played), so that is a pattern for them to be sure.

You mentioned Dragon Warrior(Well, Quest, but I"ll forever know it as Dragon Warrior) earlier Zevox. I actually consider that to be the precursor of Open World games. Once you un-locked the bottom half of the map(or bottom 3/4's more like), you have free reign of the entire map, able to go wherever you want, and fight whatever you want, visit whatever town you want. As long as you don't mind fighting enemies to strong for you(ie: willing to grind), you can go the hardest place in the game and fight there, long before you have Eldrics Armor/sword, or rescued the princess. That's pretty open world like if ya ask me ^^(and goes to show that not even JRPGs can be buttonholed into a neat little category). This is actually a hallmark of many Dragon Warrior/Quest games, though many modern incarnations require you to make it through most of the chapters before the entire map is open to you to travel wherever you wish
Eh, not really. The first Dragon Quest game was kind of like that, but the monsters limited you severely, so you did pretty much still wind up exploring things in the proper order unless you did an unholy ton of grinding, and you still couldn't enter some areas without first finding items in others (particularly the final dungeon). Further entries in the series tended to have multiple barriers to full map exploration, including the need for a method to travel by sea, improvements to sea travel (sometimes your ship started land-locked in a particular region until you got an upgrade or opened a hole somewhere), sometimes acquired air travel to move over mountains, plus some areas required specific items to enter, plus there were sometimes things like military checkpoints that only opened after you completed certain parts of the story.

There's a bit of a kernel of similarity there in Dragon Quest 3, where after getting the boat you were pretty much turned loose on a big world map to track down the orbs you needed to hatch Lamia and thus be able to enter the theoretically-final dungeon, and I think 2 may have been like that as well after getting the boat (it's been a while since I played 2 - I think it's the only one I've never replayd), but the rest tend to be more limited and force you onto a particular path in order to progress properly.

Incidentally, on the name, Dragon Quest is the series' proper, original name. It was only changed to Dragon Warrior in the US due to another company having a copyright to the name Dragon Quest at the time, but Enix changed it back as soon as they could.

Old style RPGs from the mid 90s or earlier typically weren't like that (well apart from the blank-slate characters). You had a party (usually but not always built yourself) and set out to explore with minimal direction. The game mainly consisted of an endless series of unforgiving turn-based battles. The plot was roughly "kill the evil wizard".
That doesn't sound like any western game I've ever played. It's roughly analogous to earlier Dragon Quest games (particularly 3), or perhaps Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey (which was straight-up dungeon crawling for the vast majority of the time you spent with it), but certainly nothing I've ever associated with western-style RPGs.

The thing is, I don't know what the definition of "Western RPG" and "Eastern RPG" are. If it's "RPGs made in the West or East", then duh, but that's not a meaningful distinction :smallsmile:.
Well yes, that is their definition, but the point is that there are certain stylistic differences between RPGs made in those regions that generally (though not always) hold true. Japanese RPGs tend to have a main character that is either silent and totally without dialogue or has a pre-defined personality, and their stories tend to either be linear with no option for the player to alter them or allow the player to simply choose between a handful of different endings. Western RPGs on the flip side tend to focus on letting the player determine who the main character is and what he (or she) is like, and write the story to allow the player to pick from different options to affect it. Western RPGs are also more likely to include significant amounts of character customization than Japanese ones, which tend to give the characters more pre-defined abilities.

Zevox

Trazoi

2011-11-19, 01:11 AM

From my time spent over on the Bethsoft forums, I think I can answer that: Western RPGs are traditionally Open World RPGs, with characters that have no actual pre-involvement with the storyline.
I'd agree with the open world being the distinction of the Western RPG, in the sense that they're more about creating a living fantasy world environment than the plot. But I think the Elder Scrolls fits that sentiment perfectly. A lot of the western RPGs have the hero as some sort of chosen one (Ultima is a prime example), so it's not as if that's the critical factor.

I feel the Bioware games as more a fusion because they're so heavily plot and character driven, much like the JRPGs I've played from the last decade or two. Bioware games are more multilinear than non-linear; you might choose which of the four mystic MacGuffins you need for the main quest you go after next, or whether you do the good or evil option for each quest, but it's not nearly as freely open as other WRPGs like Elder Scrolls, Wizardry or Might & Magic.

iyaerP

2011-11-19, 01:31 AM

As for the "Your goal is to kill the evil wizard" games, those tend to be anything from the late 80s to mid 90s in terms of RPGs. Mostly Roguelikes.

The Ur-example of course being Nethack.

Starwulf

2011-11-19, 03:18 AM

I would disagree with you there, I think sometimes taking away customization can be a very good thing. I'm personally of the opinion that blank-slate style main characters are inferior to pre-defined ones entirely, due to being harder to write good stories around since you have to account for different types of actions they could take, instead of writing a story arc that meaningfully explores the character. So in general I'd be in support of things like Bioware making the main character of DA2 only a human, as defining at least that trait of the character helps them write the story more specifically for that character (and they did to at least some degree - Hawke's family history allowed her to become a noble after the first act, and with the xenophobia of Kirkwall it's highly unlikely that a non-human character could have done anything like that, and also due to that xenophobia one wonders whether she would have been so eagerly embraced as champion had she been non-human).

Eh, not really. The first Dragon Quest game was kind of like that, but the monsters limited you severely, so you did pretty much still wind up exploring things in the proper order unless you did an unholy ton of grinding, and you still couldn't enter some areas without first finding items in others (particularly the final dungeon). Further entries in the series tended to have multiple barriers to full map exploration, including the need for a method to travel by sea, improvements to sea travel (sometimes your ship started land-locked in a particular region until you got an upgrade or opened a hole somewhere), sometimes acquired air travel to move over mountains, plus some areas required specific items to enter, plus there were sometimes things like military checkpoints that only opened after you completed certain parts of the story.

Incidentally, on the name, Dragon Quest is the series' proper, original name. It was only changed to Dragon Warrior in the US due to another company having a copyright to the name Dragon Quest at the time, but Enix changed it back as soon as they could.

Zevox

Well, the first part is just essentially our differences in taste. I'd rather have customization over just about anything else short of a solid story. I'd take it over graphics and gameplay, hands down, even if it's detrimental to said gameplay.

As far as the original Dragon warrior goes, I wasn't saying it WAS the first open-world game, just that it was kind of the precursor to them. While it was still primarily a JRPG, it has enough similarities to modern day Open World games, and considering it was the first RPG, it just screams to me that the first Open World game developers took certain aspects of it, left the others out, and then improved on the forumula. You are right though, it WOULD take an incredible amount of grinding to be able to go anywhere on the map without being slaughtering, but I can think of several semi-modern Open World games that are the same way, ie: Morrowind. Try going to a Daedric shrine at level 1 without having already first hit up the hidden artifacts in the game. You'll be slaughtered in a heartbeat.

Finally, I did know that Dragon warrior was, and has always been called Dragon quest originally and that it was just changed to Dragon warrior in the states when it was first imported, I was merely commenting on the fact that that is how I was introduced to the series, so it's hard for me to not automatically call it Dragon Warrior. I was in a game store the other day asking about Dragon Quest VI, but I called it Dragon Warrior VI instead, and the guy was like "Huh? Is that the same as Dragon Quest"?(I'll admit, I felt kinda bad for him, working in a video game store, and not knowing the history of one of the most popular RPG series in history But yeah, I digress. Always going to call it Dragon Warrior, hard to get it out of my head after owning(and still having) all the original Four released in the states for the NES before they finally stared calling it Dragon Quest.

Zevox

2011-11-19, 03:47 AM

Well, the first part is just essentially our differences in taste. I'd rather have customization over just about anything else short of a solid story. I'd take it over graphics and gameplay, hands down, even if it's detrimental to said gameplay.
:smallconfused: Wait, what? What does graphics vs gameplay have to do with any of what we talking about there?

Finally, I did know that Dragon warrior was, and has always been called Dragon quest originally and that it was just changed to Dragon warrior in the states when it was first imported, I was merely commenting on the fact that that is how I was introduced to the series, so it's hard for me to not automatically call it Dragon Warrior.
Huh. I was kind of the same way when I was initially reintroduced to the series (after playing the GBC remakes of DQ 1-3 I basically forgot about the series for years, until friends started recommending I get a PS2 for Dragon Quest 8 - and this was after the Wii and other current-gen console were already out, so it had been quite some time since those remakes), but I adapted to the name change rather quickly myself. It just didn't seem right to me to keep calling it by what was essentially a placeholder name.

Zevox

warty goblin

2011-11-19, 01:29 PM

I'm aware - that part of my remark was in response to Starwulf citing fan hatred of the game specifically, not your remarks.

Fair enough, and I figured that to be the case. I simply wished to make sure my position was clear.

The graphics and art is simply a case of subjectivity, so not much point in arguing with you there, although I of course disagree.

All I can really say about the art is that it looked like I was being attacked by zombies who had just went on a shopping binge at Big Sally's Discount Uruk-Hai Lingerie SuperStore. Needless to say I didn't think this was a good look.

Also DAII joins the august company of the Two Worlds series as games in which your sister dresses like a total skank.

The relatively paucity of the engine however I think is anything but subjective. The textures were low-res, the lighting and shadowing poor and from what I could tell entirely non-dynamic. Coming off of Rage, where the textures are painfully high-res, the lighting vivid and gorgeous, the loading times short and everything silky smooth, it was quite painful. Probably not the most fair of comparisons, since Rage is, if not the, then one of, the most technically innovative games released this year. However Drakensang: the River of Time is certainly not, and also looks much better IMHO.

Can't say I understand what you mean with the combat at all though.

I found it visually hard to sort (probably the bad lighting), the abilities strange (why can I just teleport behind a dude and shank them? Where is my infinite bag of flasks?), and the camera singularly unhelpful.

If you're basing your judgment on a very short try of the game though there's not much to discuss one way or the other, as you can't have seen most of the details of any aspect of it. That's not to say that you deciding that the game isn't for you based on a short try isn't perfectly valid - I've done the same with plenty of games myself - but I do think that claiming that the game on the whole is "virulently bad" based on that little would be very invalid.

Zevox
Thanks to the blissful return of home internet this week I played through the opening of 5 different games, all released this year. DAII finished bottom of the field. Very minor game opening spoilers follow.

In Skyrim I was nearly executed in a marvelously tense and nearly well animated sequence, after which I had to flee a dragon. Chaotic, moody, and set up the plot quite nicely.

In Saint's Row the Third I skydived through the cockpit of a moving airplane so I could attempt to shoot a Belgian crime lord. Then I stole several helicopter loads of guns from the National Guard. Totally crazy, completely awesome.

In Might and Magic: Heroes VI I watched a quite pretty opening cinematic that for me hit the right combination of melodrama and fantasy nonsense, then had some nice, well designed turn based combat and questing. Still not as good as Age of Wonders, but quite good all the same.

In Rage I got out of cryosleep, and within ten minutes was shooting mutants in the face. Actually sort of weak (and nowhere near as good as Doom 3's opening), but the world was nicely executed, the voice acting nice, and the shooting marvelous.

In DAII I watched two people I didn't argue about I don't know what, then got into a pointless, fight, then watched them argue some more.

Starwulf

2011-11-19, 10:05 PM

:smallconfused: Wait, what? What does graphics vs gameplay have to do with any of what we talking about there?

Huh. I was kind of the same way when I was initially reintroduced to the series (after playing the GBC remakes of DQ 1-3 I basically forgot about the series for years, until friends started recommending I get a PS2 for Dragon Quest 8 - and this was after the Wii and other current-gen console were already out, so it had been quite some time since those remakes), but I adapted to the name change rather quickly myself. It just didn't seem right to me to keep calling it by what was essentially a placeholder name.

Zevox

Lol, they have nothing to do with what we were talking about, I was merely commenting that for me, Customization trumps everything but Storyline when it comes to RPGs ^^

Acanous

2011-11-20, 10:24 PM

Would you consider Fire Emblem to be an RPG series?

Giggling Ghast

2011-11-24, 02:01 PM

Evidence is mounting that it's a modern first-person shooter.

Mx.Silver

2011-11-24, 02:57 PM

Would you consider Fire Emblem to be an RPG series?
At most it's a hybrid, and to be honest even then I'd still be more inclined to include it with the TBS camp than with other RPGs.

Evidence is mounting that it's a modern first-person shooter.

Oh joy :smallsigh:
I know they've been threatening to make one for a few years now but still...

Zevox

2011-11-24, 03:29 PM

Evidence is mounting that it's a modern first-person shooter.
I hope not. It'd be the first Bioware game that I have no interest in playing. I love Bioware's work, but not even they could make me want to play a modern FPS.

At most it's a hybrid, and to be honest even then I'd still be more inclined to include it with the TBS camp than with other RPGs.
Fire Emblem is the series that created the tactical RPG sub-genre, which spans games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea.

Zevox

MCerberus

2011-11-24, 06:37 PM

If it is a C&C game, I'd trust Bioware over any other studio to bring some of the Westwood magic back. I really haven't liked the offerings of the series after Zero Hour (which, I know was after the studio was broken up, but there was still some of the soul of it in there).

Mewtarthio

2011-11-24, 07:04 PM

Evidence is mounting that it's a modern first-person shooter.

Citation for that?

Giggling Ghast

2011-11-24, 07:14 PM

Citation for that?

It was a prediction based on this video (http://www.spike.com/video-clips/xmcja6/video-game-awards-the-next-game-from-bioware).

However, the current scuttlebutt (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/23/new-game-from-new-bioware-studio-could-be-command-and-conquer-by-v/) is that the new franchise is a Command & Conquer game under a re-branded studio.

Mx.Silver

2011-11-24, 08:17 PM

Fire Emblem is the series that created the tactical RPG sub-genre, which spans games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea.

Tactical RPGs are hybrids, it's right there in the name :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone

2011-11-24, 09:56 PM

Mewtarthio

2011-11-24, 11:52 PM

It was a prediction based on this video (http://www.spike.com/video-clips/xmcja6/video-game-awards-the-next-game-from-bioware).

We know it's got tanks in it. Sure, just about any AAA title set in a time period with tanks in it has been an FPS, but I've still got my hopes up.

However, the current scuttlebutt (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/23/new-game-from-new-bioware-studio-could-be-command-and-conquer-by-v/) is that the new franchise is a Command & Conquer game under a re-branded studio.

Oh. That article's a little disappointing. It makes it sound like EA just re-branded an existing studio and declared it to be a "new Bioware studio." Is there any reason to expect the same Bioware magic to show up in this game?

Also, I was kind of hoping for Alpha Protocol with Bioware's budget...

iyaerP

2011-11-24, 11:57 PM

I was kind of hoping for a Roadwarrior-esque Bioware project based on that first screenshot.

Zevox

2011-11-24, 11:59 PM

Oh. That article's a little disappointing. It makes it sound like EA just re-branded an existing studio and declared it to be a "new Bioware studio." Is there any reason to expect the same Bioware magic to show up in this game?

Also, I was kind of hoping for Alpha Protocol with Bioware's budget...
Yeah, that's very disappointing actually. Much as a new Command & Conquer game could be nice (I liked Red Alert 1 and 2, they were a couple of my earlier RTS games), the idea that EA is going to be using Bioware's name as a label on unrelated developers they own to try and leach off their good reputation leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Zevox

Sith_Happens

2011-11-25, 06:03 AM

Yeah, that's very disappointing actually. Much as a new Command & Conquer game could be nice (I liked Red Alert 1 and 2, they were a couple of my earlier RTS games), the idea that EA is going to be using Bioware's name as a label on unrelated developers they own to try and leach off their good reputation leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Zevox

Well, so far that's only happened with Wrath of Heroes, and I just see that as a side-effect of the obviously SW:TOR-development-driven decision to roll Mythic into BioWare.

EDIT: Read the Joystiq article about BioWare becoming a label. As long as the docs still get to stick their fingers into everything that goes on under said label I'm not too worried though, and if anything it should have a rather interesting effect on some of EA's other franchies (like possibly C&C).

Acanous

2011-11-25, 06:04 AM

This means we're going to have to pay attention to what comes out of edmonton in particular when picking out a new bioware game.

Friggin' EA.

DaedalusMkV

2011-11-25, 03:40 PM

So, C&C Generals 2 seems the most likely outcome of the options? I can't see a Red Alert 4 just yet (though the series definitely needs one after the garbage of RA3), and they've already got 4 Tiberium games.

That's strange, I could have sworn there were only three Tiberium games. I certainly cannot imagine that there was a sequel to C&C3, after all. *Checks* Yup, I was right. Certainly there have been no new Command and Conquer games since Red Alert 3. Especially not some crummy shoddily made third-party RTS that was swiftly and ignominously rebranded into something called Tiberium Twilight and foisted on the series' fans. That wouldn't make any sense at all. :smallfrown:

Am I the only one who liked C&C 3 and Red Alert 3? Tiberium Wars really felt like a continuation of Tiberian Dawn's story to me; it really did feel like Command and Conquer with the clunky UI and awful pathfinding replaced with a bit more tactical and strategic depth, and the plot was overall pretty damned solid. RA3 wasn't anywhere near the level of that, what with ratcheting up the silly campiness a bit past the point of sanity and cluttering the gameplay with dozens of fiddly special abilities, but I still had fun with it. Yeah, it was no Red Alert or RA2, but it was still an enjoyable game that I've got a good ~25-30 hours of fun out of. How often can you say that about modern non-RPG games?

The Glyphstone

2011-11-25, 03:54 PM

\RA3 wasn't anywhere near the level of that, what with ratcheting up the silly campiness a bit past the point of sanity and cluttering the gameplay with dozens of fiddly special abilities, but I still had fun with it. Yeah, it was no Red Alert or RA2, but it was still an enjoyable game that I've got a good ~25-30 hours of fun out of. How often can you say that about modern non-RPG games?

See, that was my problem with it - it's like the series has Flanderized itself; the campiness and bizarre technology was always a lure, but they pushed it too far this time by over-exaggerating the wackiness. Plus, the actors weren't nearly as good. President Dugan was way more badass than Ackerman, Tanya is downright ugly as a blonde, and I miss Einstein. George Takei as the Japanese Emperor is great, but the rest of the Imperial cast is utterly forgettable. Tim Curry does a decent job as the new Premier, but Romanov (RIP, Nicolas Worth) was more entertaining.

Psyren

2011-11-26, 12:22 AM

"Bioware" Command & Conquer? Really? :smallfrown:

Ugh. EA continues to not get it.

Acanous

2011-11-26, 12:27 AM

I DO want to see Generals 2, though. Generals was fun to play, and the story was pretty cool. Zero Hour's general fights were fantastic.

Derthric

2011-11-26, 10:37 AM

See, that was my problem with it - it's like the series has Flanderized itself; the campiness and bizarre technology was always a lure, but they pushed it too far this time by over-exaggerating the wackiness. Plus, the actors weren't nearly as good. President Dugan was way more badass than Ackerman, Tanya is downright ugly as a blonde, and I miss Einstein. George Takei as the Japanese Emperor is great, but the rest of the Imperial cast is utterly forgettable. Tim Curry does a decent job as the new Premier, but Romanov (RIP, Nicolas Worth) was more entertaining.

I agree with you on all counts here. I just found RA3 incredibly frustrating because they took the fluff that RA2 had that gave it flavor and made them the centerpieces of the game. But none of the missions were that memorable. I can recount the first time I chronoshifted into Moscow or defended Einsteins lab. I cannot say the same for RA3.

The Glyphstone

2011-11-26, 10:53 AM

Derthric

2011-11-26, 12:03 PM

Yeah. Turning the Eiffel Tower into an impromptu Giant Tesla Coil. Badass. Mt. Rushmore secretly being a gigantic laser cannon that was somehow built without the supreme commander of the American military knowing it existed? Lame.

And Cryo tech is boring compared to Prism tech.

Yes, Yes, YES! You sir have made excellent points and I would love to subscribe to you newsletter.

Back to the main point of the thread. If the EAification of Bioware is EA opening new studios and slapping the Bioware tag on it, we're getting off easy. I hope that this is as far as it goes (and yes I know I just jinxed it)

Maxios

2011-11-26, 12:08 PM

MCerberus

2011-11-26, 01:09 PM

"Bioware" Command & Conquer? Really? :smallfrown:

Ugh. EA continues to not get it.

If it is actually Bioware doing something, we have to remember this is the studio(cluster) that made a Sonic RPG and pulled it off.

Avilan the Grey

2011-11-26, 01:20 PM

While Awakening may have been commercially successful,

The actual sales numbers show, on top of what you say, that it would not have been commercially successful without DA:O. The sales basically dropped to zero after the first week and stayed that way, after all the pre-orders and bought-on-release days had passed.

Psyren

2011-11-26, 02:47 PM

If it is actually Bioware doing something, we have to remember this is the studio(cluster) that made a Sonic RPG and pulled it off.

If it's a C&C RPG I'll give it a shot. But if it's just a C&C game count me out.

Mx.Silver

2011-11-26, 03:50 PM

The actual sales numbers show, on top of what you say, that it would not have been commercially successful without DA:O.
I'd have assumed that's sort of a given considering it's an expansion pack.

Avilan the Grey

2011-11-26, 06:07 PM

I'd have assumed that's sort of a given considering it's an expansion pack.

Ah my bad. Brainfart. I thought you talked about Dragon Age 2. My bad. :smalleek::smallredface:

warty goblin

2011-11-26, 11:29 PM

Renaming Victory Games to be a "Bioware" studio is a real cheap move on EA's part. But hey, if the worst EA is doing to Bioware is renaming studios to sound like it's a Bioware studio; that's not as bad as if they were making Bioware make generic first-person shooters or something.

Let's be fair here, ye olde FPS can be a hell of a lot of fun when done well, and outside the extremely regressive forms like Call of Duty can be quite unique. Personally I've gotten about as much fun out of Crysis+Warhead than everything Bioware's ever made combined. Don't get me wrong, I liked Mass Effect, just not as much as the Assault and Onslaught levels halfway through Crysis, which arguably did more unique stuff as well.

Sith_Happens

2011-11-27, 05:34 AM

Let's be fair here, ye olde FPS can be a hell of a lot of fun when done well, and outside the extremely regressive forms like Call of Duty can be quite unique. Personally I've gotten about as much fun out of Crysis+Warhead than everything Bioware's ever made combined. Don't get me wrong, I liked Mass Effect, just not as much as the Assault and Onslaught levels halfway through Crysis, which arguably did more unique stuff as well.

Of course, my dream is for there to be a DICE/BioWare team-up to create the greatest FPS of all time. Battlefield gameplay + BioWare story = TAKE MY MONEY NOW, DANGIT!

iyaerP

2011-11-27, 06:56 AM

Minsc and Boo shall be free! Free to take this tank and with it crush evil!

The Glyphstone

2011-11-27, 08:15 AM

Minsc and Boo shall be free! Free to take this tank and with it crush evil!

Minsc totally deserves to be the hero of his own game. Throw in some time travel to various eras of history to play with various weapons, then into the future so Minsc can plant his boot in the buttocks of evil IN SPAAAAACE.

warty goblin

2011-11-27, 03:04 PM

Of course, my dream is for there to be a DICE/BioWare team-up to create the greatest FPS of all time. Battlefield gameplay + BioWare story = TAKE MY MONEY NOW, DANGIT!

An interesting notion, but for my FPS/RPG dream teams I'd prefer:

1) CD Projekt Red and Crytek, because it would take the idea of multiple solutions and paths to entirely new levels, while looking very, very nice.

2) Bethesda/id, because I like open worlds, and id Tech 5 is somewhere between stunning and mindblowing. Also I'm not convinced that anybody makes shooters with better tactile feel than id, and unlike Bethesda, id knows how to animate well.

I liked Battlefield Bad Company 2 OK, but the singleplayer really didn't stand up to a second go-through, and while the shooting felt decent it wasn't a patch on Crysis' wonderfully controlled and customizable guns, or the sheer glee of shooting dudes with shotgun grenades in Rage.

warty goblin

2011-12-11, 12:30 AM

Zevox

2011-12-11, 12:40 AM

So yep, it's C&C: Generals 2, developed by "Bioware Victory" which is apparently what they're calling The Studio Formerly Known as EALA now. I take this as good news as EALA has done some very good RTSs in the past and I'm far more excited about a big budget RTS* than another of what Bioware usually churns out. Also it uses Frostbite 2, and I'm absolutely on board with using awesome new engines for something besides shooters.

Requisite trailer featuring tanks (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/vga-2011-command/724611).

*Have there actually been any this year? Dow II: Retribution is the only thing that comes to mind, and that's pretty divergent from RTS norms. Before that the only ones I can think of are SupCom 2 and Starcraft II, both of which are 2010.
So as the rumors were indicating it's not actually a Bioware game after all. Oh well. Personally, having picked up Starcraft 2 earlier this year, I doubt I'll be in the market for another RTS for a while, so I doubt I'll be getting that. Besides there's always the worry about whether my PC will actually be able to play any new games when it comes to those - it barely plays Starcraft 2.

Gotta say though, those air units that showed up at the tail end of the trailer look suspiciously like Starcraft 2's Banshees.

Zevox

Psyren

2011-12-11, 12:46 AM

Other than Starcraft 2: The Entire Game Edition (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/7357-Stolen-Pixels-181-The-Prognosticationater) and Warcraft 4 (whenever/if ever THAT gets made), I have no real interest in any RTS.

warty goblin

2011-12-11, 01:10 AM

So as the rumors were indicating it's not actually a Bioware game after all. Oh well. Personally, having picked up Starcraft 2 earlier this year, I doubt I'll be in the market for another RTS for a while, so I doubt I'll be getting that. Besides there's always the worry about whether my PC will actually be able to play any new games when it comes to those - it barely plays Starcraft 2.

It's not surprising really though, since what one might call the 'proper' Bioware studios are already putting out the Old Republic this year, Mass Effect sometime next year, and are probably working on Dragon Age 3 to boot. That's a lot of eggs to keep in the air, and they've zero experience with building something like an RTS.

Gotta say though, those air units that showed up at the tail end of the trailer look suspiciously like Starcraft 2's Banshees.

Zevox
Oh that design's older than that. The basic double framed rotors on either side of the fuselage shows up at least as early as Unreal 2004's Manta (http://strategywiki.org/wiki/File:Ut2k4_vehicle_manta.png), although I'd bet there's something else that uses it earlier that I don't know about. It's also pretty much a go-to design for drones and other light aircraft in the near future military porn genre anymore.

(Also, on a purely technical note, the ones in the trailer don't have a tail rotor, while apparently the Banshee's do, the former strikes me as superior design since it should maintain nearly identical maneuverability with fewer complex mechanical parts.)

Zevox

2011-12-11, 01:20 AM

It's not surprising really though, since what one might call the 'proper' Bioware studios are already putting out the Old Republic this year, Mass Effect sometime next year, and are probably working on Dragon Age 3 to boot. That's a lot of eggs to keep in the air, and they've zero experience with building something like an RTS.
True enough. Though since ME3 is due out relatively soon (early March) and The Old Republic even sooner (I honestly thought it was out already at this point, but if it's due out before the end of the year it has to be within a few weeks) and the next Dragon Age title has yet to be actually announced rather than just assumed to exist, they're actually going to be out of known projects shortly, so I wouldn't have been all that surprised to have a new one announced about now. I'd have been quite surprised for it to be something other than more Mass Effect or Dragon Age, but not to hear something in general.

Zevox

KingofMadCows

2011-12-11, 01:46 AM

EA hired Jon Van Caneghem, creator of the Might and Magic franchise (and Rift, technically), to head up a new development studio called Victory Games last year to work on the Command and Conquer franchise. I wonder how they'll be involved in Generals 2.

If Jon Van Caneghem was in charge then there's a pretty good chance that it'll turn out to be a great game.

Sith_Happens

2011-12-11, 08:26 PM

warty goblin

2011-12-11, 08:49 PM

Also, ten bucks says the Docs still get to pick the writers for all of "BioWare's" "new" studios.

Man I hope not, mostly for the sake of said writers. RTSs are horrible vehicles for directed narrative storytelling to the point where I wish they'd really just stop bothering*. I'd imagine it being pretty crushing for some new guy getting his dream job writing for Bioware and then finding out that involves coming up with some way to make driving tanks over the other guy's base eight times in a row into something resembling a story.

Mind you, so long as they keep all such writing confined to the campaign, and have a good solid skirmish mode I'm happy. If they decide to axe skirmish for more 'story' however there shall be annoyance, and probably me not handing them my money.

*The only RTS mission I can ever have said to find actually good was the Defense of Carantan in Company of Heroes, and even that was only about half as good as a decent skirmish. Everything else is pretty much uniformly wretched.

Squark

2011-12-11, 10:20 PM

True enough. Though since ME3 is due out relatively soon (early March) and The Old Republic even sooner (I honestly thought it was out already at this point, but if it's due out before the end of the year it has to be within a few weeks) and the next Dragon Age title has yet to be actually announced rather than just assumed to exist, they're actually going to be out of known projects shortly, so I wouldn't have been all that surprised to have a new one announced about now. I'd have been quite surprised for it to be something other than more Mass Effect or Dragon Age, but not to hear something in general.

Zevox

MMO's tend to consume a lot of their time, as the dev team will be kept busy updating the game post-launch. There's also the distinct possibility the ME3 team will send a good portion of itself into the DLC department like they did with ME2

Derthric

2011-12-12, 03:44 PM

SO they have announced that the GLA is a returning faction and that the EU will be another. They have said the third will be a surprise they wont reveal yet. My money is on China again or at least some form of Asian superpower. Zero Hour ended with China as the ascendant power, plus a western faction is already represented. Thoughts?

warty goblin

2011-12-12, 05:06 PM

IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1214474p1.html) has an interview up. Everything Roy Muzyka says fills me with terror, the idea of Bioware storytelling applied to an RTS is quite painful. Just imagine:

"Welcome to your initiation as a General. I'm Lieutenant Soulful Boring, and I'll be your companion throughout. Inexplicably I sound and look exactly like Kaiden from Mass Effect. Later we can explore my traumatic past after which we can have sex, which will unlock a new tank. But now we need to listen to this briefing from Sergeant Exposition."

"Hi, I'm Major Girl Next Door. I'll be in command of your air forces, and will be happy to discuss more of my life's history with you after every major battle. If you pick the obvious right answer to all the dialog choices we can have sex before the last battle, which will unlock a new attack helicopter."

"I'm Sergeant Hardened Mercenary, and I'll be in command of your infantry. Just like the Major I'll be happy to discuss my traumatic life history after every major battle, although we won't be having sex. However if you find my ancestral armor all your infantry squads will have more HP."

"General this is High Command. Listen, we need you to locate the enemy's main base. Nobody knows where the massive industrial complex he uses to produce all those tanks is, but we have four ideas, which you may pursue in any order. Of course you should also feel free to wander around the globe picking fights with inexplicably well armed bandits for the hell of it."

"High Command again. So it turns out that the enemy base isn't at any of those four spots. Our bad. But we're absolutely sure it's at this fifth spot, so be sure to check that out as soon as it's convenient."

"Yeah, this is High Command, yet again. We're still trying to how we missed the fifth spot being such an obvious trap, although Intel is suggesting that presence of three fifths of the world's armed forces might have been a tipoff. Anyway, tots our bad, and we're dreadfully sorry you had to sacrifice Lieutenant Soulful Boring/Major Girl Next Door to cover the retreat. Fortunately however Intel is reporting that they're absolutely, positive this time that they've found the enemy base."

"General, allow me to say how sorry I am for my romantic rival Girl Next Door/Soulful Boring's heroic sacrifice. Seeing one person die in a cutscene has so much more emotional engagement than the million odd grunts we've ordered to their deaths. Tomorrow we'll avenge his/her death, but tonight we should totally do in the Uncanny Valley position."

I pray that skirmish remains untouched.

Sith_Happens

2011-12-12, 09:26 PM

*Hypothetical Generals 2 plot*

Huh, why does this sound familiar... Oh well, as long as it has dialogue wheels I'm in.:smallwink:

Although I am irked that you managed to catch me while I'm all out of heavy-infantry-related double entendres.:smalltongue:

warty goblin

2011-12-12, 11:52 PM

Huh, why does this sound familiar... Oh well, as long as it has dialogue wheels I'm in.:smallwink:

But that's just the point I was trying to (comically) make: RTSs don't need dialog trees because that has nothing to do with what makes a good RTS.

Although I am irked that you managed to catch me while I'm all out of heavy-infantry-related double entendres.:smalltongue:
How's "My GIs are so hard they're up for anything, and once they get stuck in they don't pull out." Vile enough?

And tragically I only thought of 'let's play put it in the uncanny valley' after posting. So many horrible puns, so little time...

Zevox

2011-12-13, 12:59 AM

But that's just the point I was trying to (comically) make: RTSs don't need dialog trees because that has nothing to do with what makes a good RTS.
But does that matter? It seems to me to be the same case as with Fighting games: just because the story mode isn't the main point of the genre doesn't mean that those that put real effort into theirs won't be all the better for it. So long as the gameplay is good, why begrudge including a single-player campaign with a strong focus on its story as well?

Heck, I can honestly tell you that most of my enjoyment of RTS titles so far has been from their campaigns. I only recently played multiplayer in Starcraft 2, and while that's fun, it's a distinctly different kind of fun than I got from the game's campaign mode, which was a very good one.

Zevox

KingofMadCows

2011-12-13, 01:31 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if they just rehash the story of the first Command and Conquer game. That game basically was an allegory for modern day conflict.

You have the western powers uniting to fight against a highly decentralized pseudo religious terrorist group over third world countries for control of a rare resource. There are powerful corporate interests pulling strings from behind the scenes. Instead of the massive conflicts of the past, the terrorist faction utilize a campaign of propaganda, sabotage, and small scale attacks all over the world but particularly in third world countries with ties to or are occupied by western powers, with the intent to cripple the western nations economically.

Sith_Happens

2011-12-13, 02:40 AM

How's "My GIs are so hard they're up for anything, and once they get stuck in they don't pull out." Vile enough?

And tragically I only thought of 'let's play put it in the uncanny valley' after posting. So many horrible puns, so little time...

Too blunt. I was thinking more along the lines of:
"I hope your main gun is ready, I might need your help loading my next shell."

Derthric

2011-12-13, 05:56 AM

This is command and conquer we are talking about, the wonderful franchise that gave us these quotes from a half dressed Allied Commando named Tanya.

"Shake it baby!"
"Locked and Loaded"

They sound way better when Kari Wuhrer says them.

warty goblin

2011-12-13, 11:24 AM

But does that matter? It seems to me to be the same case as with Fighting games: just because the story mode isn't the main point of the genre doesn't mean that those that put real effort into theirs won't be all the better for it. So long as the gameplay is good, why begrudge including a single-player campaign with a strong focus on its story as well?

Heck, I can honestly tell you that most of my enjoyment of RTS titles so far has been from their campaigns. I only recently played multiplayer in Starcraft 2, and while that's fun, it's a distinctly different kind of fun than I got from the game's campaign mode, which was a very good one.

Zevox

See my issue is that I find the story almost always makes the gameplay worse. RTSs are like large, carefully assembled toolboxes, and the fun comes from strategizing how optimally to employ all the different things at your disposal. All the story usually does is put a bunch of annoying restrictions on what I can use so they can keep drip-feeding me a new unit every map or so. The strategy part nearly always ends up sucking because of this, since the answer is usually blatantly obvious (Use the unit they just gave you), and the story is frankly probably fairly crappy as well.

Put differently, the best 'stories' I've experienced in RTSs are actually playing the game - wiping out an armor platoon in Company of Heroes with a well placed Calliope rocket barrage, or realizing that my base couldn't take the endless waves of nukes and heavy artillery fire my two enemies were throwing at it in a SupCom 2 match, and marching my twin cybernetic firebreathing T-Rexes and Monkeylord giant spider robot across the map to tear my enemy's base down around his ears. The actual story the game tries to foist upon me through cutscenes and mission design is pretty much never lets me do stuff like that. Even if it does, it's almost certainly scripted which means its less a matter of figuring something awesome out, and more of listening to Sergeant Exposition.

Dienekes

2011-12-14, 12:14 PM

See my issue is that I find the story almost always makes the gameplay worse. RTSs are like large, carefully assembled toolboxes, and the fun comes from strategizing how optimally to employ all the different things at your disposal. All the story usually does is put a bunch of annoying restrictions on what I can use so they can keep drip-feeding me a new unit every map or so. The strategy part nearly always ends up sucking because of this, since the answer is usually blatantly obvious (Use the unit they just gave you), and the story is frankly probably fairly crappy as well.

I disagree a bit. Partially because I like an interesting story for an interesting stories sake, but mostly because it doesn't have to be like that. My token example is SCII, which admittedly does do the different unit thing a bit but the real strength comes from the odd scenarios the game sets up that really do test your originality and tactical thought. My key examples are the levels where the map is slowly shrinking so you have to continuously move your base, a race to reach and secure various stations, where you have to balance resources to survive and to complete the mission, and where you have to chase down and destroy several trains. I think they add flavor and can be interestingly implemented.

Zevox

2011-12-14, 12:25 PM

See my issue is that I find the story almost always makes the gameplay worse. RTSs are like large, carefully assembled toolboxes, and the fun comes from strategizing how optimally to employ all the different things at your disposal. All the story usually does is put a bunch of annoying restrictions on what I can use so they can keep drip-feeding me a new unit every map or so. The strategy part nearly always ends up sucking because of this, since the answer is usually blatantly obvious (Use the unit they just gave you), and the story is frankly probably fairly crappy as well.
Sounds simply like a personal taste thing to me. I find the campaign modes of RTS titles fun precisely because they're more limited than the multiplayer. I don't need to worry about constantly using my resources so that I don't fall behind my opponent, I don't need to worry about the computer significantly altering its unit composition or the defenses at a certain location. I can take a more relaxed approach to things and treat the scenario more like a puzzle.

And, like Dienekes said, I'll take a good story just for its own sake. Not that all RTS games have a good story, but most that I've played at least have entertainingly goofy ones, which is still enjoyable, and if one turns out to have a good one then so much the better I say.

Zevox

warty goblin

2011-12-14, 05:11 PM

I disagree a bit. Partially because I like an interesting story for an interesting stories sake, but mostly because it doesn't have to be like that. My token example is SCII, which admittedly does do the different unit thing a bit but the real strength comes from the odd scenarios the game sets up that really do test your originality and tactical thought. My key examples are the levels where the map is slowly shrinking so you have to continuously move your base, a race to reach and secure various stations, where you have to balance resources to survive and to complete the mission, and where you have to chase down and destroy several trains. I think they add flavor and can be interestingly implemented.

I quite enjoy a good story when it happens along. I've just never actually found one in an RTS. The characters tend to be paper-thin, the plot a series of bases destroyed, and the missions usually feel strangely separate from the narrative. I found Starcraft painful and disjointed, Warcraft III simply tedious, the various C&C's I've tried generally poor, and the less said about the storylines in the Supreme Commander games the better. I did finish the campaign in the first Battle for Middle Earth game, but that simply because I like LoTR far too much, not because the mission design was crazy fun or the story particularly well told.

Now I've not played Starcraft II (in general I don't buy sequels to games I dislike , and I find Blizzard's art style hair-rendingly ugly), so maybe it has scripted maps I'd find a lot of fun. My guess however is that they'd come off tedious. When I play a strategy game I'm looking for strategy, not guess what the map scripter is going to throw at me next. To give an example, I vaguely remember about one battle from BFME's campaign, I can recall particularly awesome moments in two or three skirmish battles without even trying very hard.

So like I said, so long as Generals 2 has a good skirmish mode I'll be happy. If it's dropped to focus more on the story there's no way I'll be paying full price, which is a damn shame because I could use a new RTS. I've got about a hundred hours into SupCom 2 now, and it's starting to wear a little thin.

(Interestingly I don't mind more scripted design in things that fall on the Wargame side of the fence. I enjoyed the missions in Men of War right up until the annoying stealth ones, and all of those were pretty scripted. I suppose that basing the missions on historical events makes them intrinsically more interesting to me, and most RTSish wargames have a much more expressive set of gameplay verbs available in comparison to straight RTS as well, which makes a scripted mission feel much more diverse.)