"They keep showing combat in half-a-second-bursts for the most part,"

 

Nonsense. They've had videos of combat that lasted minutes.

 

 

 

"Regarding the NPC interaction, it will probably be more or less the same as every Bioware game after BG2."

 

Yeah, better at actual role-playing with characters just as interesting and likely deeper than found in BG2.

Edited January 6, 200917 yr by Volourn

In the end however the video did pique the leo curiosity in me and while I won't say I now will buy it I will however put it on the 'possibility' list and wait a few weeks after release and see what kind of feedback posts it gets, Plus will give bio the time for the traditional 0 day patch.. and then the patch for that patch... heh

Except that Bioware never needed to release a day 0 patch. You must confuse those with the gentleman at Obsidian (day 0 patch for NWN2).

"They keep showing combat in half-a-second-bursts for the most part,"

 

Nonsense. They've had videos of combat that lasted minutes.

 

 

 

"Regarding the NPC interaction, it will probably be more or less the same as every Bioware game after BG2."

 

Yeah, better at actual role-playing with characters just as interesting and likely deeper than found in BG2.

 

The writing and roleplaying is generally pretty bad in Bioware's games. What's better about the NPC interaction in BG2 is that they actually interacted with you, as opposed to functioning as magical monologue dispensing machines that only work at certain designated plot points, or at level up. "oh, look you saved some planet I never visited! Now I can reveal my innermost thoughts and feelings to you, even though you've kept me shut in the cargo bay for the entire game. Let's bump uglies!"

"They keep showing combat in half-a-second-bursts for the most part,"

 

Nonsense. They've had videos of combat that lasted minutes.

 

 

 

"Regarding the NPC interaction, it will probably be more or less the same as every Bioware game after BG2."

 

Yeah, better at actual role-playing with characters just as interesting and likely deeper than found in BG2.

 

The writing and roleplaying is generally pretty bad in Bioware's games. What's better about the NPC interaction in BG2 is that they actually interacted with you, as opposed to functioning as magical monologue dispensing machines that only work at certain designated plot points, or at level up. "oh, look you saved some planet I never visited! Now I can reveal my innermost thoughts and feelings to you, even though you've kept me shut in the cargo bay for the entire game. Let's bump uglies!"

If you think writing in Bio games is bad, you obviously never played Fallout 3 (mediocre), Gothic (functual), Rise of the Argonauts (already forgot, see?), NWN2 (Kelhgar was cool, anybody else) or SoZ (crap). The list goes on.

 

It may not be the best, but it's compelling, and it works within the roleplaying boundaries. And that's all that matters.

 

Dialog quality is overrated. It's the whole performance that matters, and in that case Bio is currently unsurpassed in terms of RPGs.

The whole performance? Bioware has yet to make a game with actual good combat, their plots are generally drivel, and the roleplaying is limited to Mother Theresa vs bully manchild. Also, I don't see why I should lower my standards regarding game writing, just because most developers are even more atrocious than Bioware in that department.

The whole performance? Bioware has yet to make a game with actual good combat, their plots are generally drivel, and the roleplaying is limited to Mother Theresa vs bully manchild. Also, I don't see why I should lower my standards regarding game writing, just because most developers are even more atrocious than Bioware in that department.

Perhaps you're just spoiled and set your standards too high? Fine.

 

I just think it's funny that people always love to point out the weaknesses of Bio games (combat, which imo improved vastly in ME - I like action based combat just more), while ignoring the atrocious combat we've seen in Kotor2 (actually worse than Kotor1) and the NWN2 games.

 

And yes, the whole character performance is better in Bio games. This matters to me. Or do we have yet to endure another NWN2 expansion with completely outdated NPCs before Obsidian can finally enter the fray with some real game?

Edited January 6, 200917 yr by Morgoth

MotB's NPCs were much, much better than any NPC Bioware has ever written.

 

ME's combat was indeed a big improvement over previous games, but almost anything is an improvement over KOTOR and JE combat. And while NWN2's combat was never any good, it was still better than the horrible mess that passed for combat in NWN. I don't see how KOTOR2's combat was worse than in the first KOTOR. It's exactly the same.

MotB's NPCs were much, much better than any NPC Bioware has ever written.

 

ME's combat was indeed a big improvement over previous games, but almost anything is an improvement over KOTOR and JE combat. And while NWN2's combat was never any good, it was still better than the horrible mess that passed for combat in NWN. I don't see how KOTOR2's combat was worse than in the first KOTOR. It's exactly the same.

The same, but way too easy, thus worse.

 

MotB had some very good writing indeed, but that alone doesn't make the game a superior RPG, not in my opinion. Didn't bother to play MotB twice, because I already knew the story, and there was hardly any roleplaying that mattered. (hey, in ME, I could force saren to shoot himself! Only found that out during my third play through)

 

Worse, Obsidian games seem to be inconsistend. at least Bio games usually improve in terms of character presentation (performance) and roleplaying. While in Obsidian games it goes from very good (kotor2) to mediocre( NWN2) to excellent (MoTB) to crap (SoZ). What's next huh?

Edited January 6, 200917 yr by Morgoth

By your count AP should be brilliantly awesome.

 

Frankly, regarding Bioware, I really don't see much improvement in characters or roleplaying. What I see is them selling the same game over and over again to wide acclaim.

By your count AP should be brilliantly awesome.

Sure. I'm looking forward to it. But I won't drool and rave over Obsidian before I haven't played it. They still need to proof themself with their own creation!

 

Frankly, regarding Bioware, I really don't see much improvement in characters or roleplaying. What I see is them selling the same game over and over again to wide acclaim.

There're indeed elements that feel sometimes copy & paste, but at least it's high quality stuff they're copy & pasting, heh? Better than "original" stuff which is badly designed/written. But perhaps it's just that I don't notice too much, or that I'm not so picky about these things, thus enjoying it more.

MotB had some very good writing indeed, but that alone doesn't make the game a superior RPG, not in my opinion. Didn't bother to play MotB twice, because I already knew the story, and there was hardly any roleplaying that mattered. (hey, in ME, I could force saren to shoot himself! Only found that out during my third play through)

 

This is simply false. There is a lot more reactivity in MotB than there is in Mass Effect, and the roleplaying most definetely matters. In fact, its choices and consequences are one of the most celebrated aspects of the game. Just look at the different endings and the variations regarding how you treat the curse, what happens to your companions etc. There are a lot of permutations there, especially considering it's an expansion.

MotB had some very good writing indeed, but that alone doesn't make the game a superior RPG, not in my opinion. Didn't bother to play MotB twice, because I already knew the story, and there was hardly any roleplaying that mattered. (hey, in ME, I could force saren to shoot himself! Only found that out during my third play through)

 

This is simply false. There is a lot more reactivity in MotB than there is in Mass Effect, and the roleplaying most definetely matters. In fact, its choices and consequences are one of the most celebrated aspects of the game. Just look at the different endings and the variations regarding how you treat the curse, what happens to your companions etc. There are a lot of permutations there, especially considering it's an expansion.

Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't care to play it several times, therefor I don't know the various ends.

 

So?

 

I liked Mass Effect's take more. Should I protect the counsel vessel, or should I go for that space crab? Should I convince Saren that he's wrong, or should I just plain and simple fight him? I liked that sort of decisions more, because I got to see results.

 

What was the MoTB ending again? Some shawow man dude? I already forgot. Hmm.

Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't care to play it several times, therefor I don't know the various ends.

 

So?

 

You don't have to care, I'm just pointing out that you are dead wrong. It's especially amusing that you're saying that no roleplaying mattered and then directly saying that you didn't play it through more than once. Bravo!

Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't care to play it several times, therefor I don't know the various ends.

 

So?

 

You don't have to care, I'm just pointing out that you are dead wrong. It's especially amusing that you're saying that no roleplaying mattered and then directly saying that you didn't play it through more than once. Bravo!

What are you trying to say? I remember that love interest with that bald woman (even married her), but beyond that I can't remember any quality roleplaying anymore.

I'm constantly surprised how RPG developers consistently fail to hit the happy medium between sandbox game and critical path force-feeding. Even BG2 got this wrong (but in a good way ). To be fair, MotB was a lot better (I've still not picked up SoZ).

 

It's not difficult: point me in the right direction but give me stuff to do inbetween if I like. Balance it so that I don't hit 30th level prior to getting back onto the critical path.

 

I'm hoping DA gets this right, but let's be frank, Bio loves to spoon-feed and Bio fans appear to love being spoon-fed.

 

Cheers

MC

Or perhaps Bioware was never keen on making sandbox style games. And any attempts "inbetween".

They've been making their games tighter and tighter, and lighter on content, too. It seems to be due to technical progress. There's only so much content you can make when every line is voiced, and when your platform barely renders the gameworld, much less the actors to populate it.

They've been making their games tighter and tighter, and lighter on content, too. It seems to be due to technical progress. There's only so much content you can make when every line is voiced, and when your platform barely renders the gameworld, much less the actors to populate it.

They're making their games as long as the story makes sense. There's no need to artificially extend it by having additional grinding or sandbox style walks.

 

Just face it: Nobody's gonna play a 100 hour game these days. I expect DA to be around 20 hours long (with most of the quests done), and hopefully some replayability thanks to the origin stories (albeit I'm a bit skeptical on that).

Edited January 6, 200917 yr by Morgoth

There's no need to artificially extend it by having additional grinding or sandbox style walks.

 

 

Yeah, and Mass Effect has none of that.

 

 

Nobody's gonna play a 100 hour game these days.

 

Also, this just isn't true. Less people will play a 100 hour game than a 10 hour one, but that was just as true in the BG2 days. Now unless everyone who bought BG2 suddenly keeled over and died, I'm sure there's still an audience for such a game. There just isn't enough audience to justify a game that blows up the budget with endless voice overs and graphical shinies. Imagine how much Torment would have cost if all the lines were voiced.

There's no need to artificially extend it by having additional grinding or sandbox style walks.

 

 

Yeah, and Mass Effect has none of that.

I chose not to play that crap. Took me 12 hours for the first play-through, the main story, that is.

 

I can only hope though that DA offers more interesting quests besides the main story.

 

 

Also, this just isn't true. Less people will play a 100 hour game than a 10 hour one, but that was just as true in the BG2 days. Now unless everyone who bought BG2 suddenly keeled over and died, I'm sure there's still an audience for such a game. There just isn't enough audience to justify a game that blows up the budget with endless voice overs and graphical shinies. Imagine how much Torment would have cost if all the lines were voiced.

Funny that you use the term "graphical shinies". DA does seem to look a bit dated, technically speaking. And VO is a given, or do you want your characters doing mime play?

 

Torment was more a novel, less a game. I wouldn't have the patience for that kind of games these days. DA will be as long as the story makes sense. And that is alrighty in my book.

VO is a given, or do you want your characters doing mime play?

 

Yeah, these days VO is a given, but that doesn't change my point that production costs are stunting the growth of the genre. And frankly, as I enjoy reading, I wouldn't mind if a big budget RPG was released with more limited or no voice acting. Furthermore, whether there is VO or not is kind of beside the point of whether I enjoy a game or not. It's the perceived quality of the writing (and the VO, as the case may be) that determines my enjoyment of an entertainment product.

 

 

Torment was more a novel, less a game. I wouldn't have the patience for that kind of games these days. DA will be as long as the story makes sense. And that is alrighty in my book.

 

Torment was as much a game as any other RPG. It's a game with different gameplay emphasis compared to other RPGs but it's still very much a game, not a novel.

VO is a given, or do you want your characters doing mime play?

 

Yeah, these days VO is a given, but that doesn't change my point that production costs are stunting the growth of the genre. And frankly, as I enjoy reading, I wouldn't mind if a big budget RPG was released with more limited or no voice acting. Furthermore, whether there is VO or not is kind of beside the point of whether I enjoy a game or not. It's the perceived quality of the writing (and the VO, as the case may be) that determines my enjoyment of an entertainment product.

No VO, no camera-points-to-the-face-talk, no real acting. Alot of the performance would be gone, and that would be a step back rather than forward. I don't think Bio wants that, and even less considering they're also making console versions.

 

Voice acting breathes a lot depth and personality into the characters, and I wouldn't want to miss it these days anymore.

Edited January 6, 200917 yr by Morgoth

It wouldn't be a step backward, it would just be different. Unless you think movies are inherently better than books.

 

Of course, I'm 100% sure Bioware doesn't want this. No large game developer wants it at this point. Publishers are becoming more and more averse to investing on games that don't appeal to an, already established, huge customer base, probably due to ever spiraling development costs. Frankly, I think publishers need to grow a brain.

I'm pretty sure DA was initiated on Bioware's behalf. They have a lot of autonomy within the EA group, so I don't think this decision (full VO) was forced upon them.

 

It's also about the style of storytelling. You can do so much more when you also show something. Wouldn't make much sense to have all that cinematographical stuff when all characters are mute.

:: Shrugs ::

 

BG1 & BG2 had sandbox elements in that you could wander around and explore within certain constraints. It gave an illusion of freedom. I liked it, so did about a hundred thousand plus other gamers, it resurrected the genre and is one of the reasons we are still talking about Bioware.

 

Furthermore, if we are to believe (and let's give them the benefit of the doubt) the Bio hype, this is their 'spiritual successor' to Baldur's Gate (although the combat still looks a bit NWN to me) why not hope for a less restrictive critical path?

 

And saying "nobody wants to play 100 hour games any more" might be true of some console-addicted twitch gamers, but it certainly isn't true of the sizeable numbers of grown-up gamers who like strategy and RPG titles. We actually look for replayability, content, difficulty and, yes, the length of the game. After all, I'm only buying four or five a year now and I'm getting pickier. If I'm putting down almost UK