Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Fuck Dragon Age 3, this thread is now about RPG stat systems

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,506
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Strawman argument. A (Dragon Age) has little to do with B and C (Mass Effect ans SWTOR). The fact of the matter is Dragon Age is a well-made game. That Mass Effect and TOR are not is meaningless (because there can be thousands of reasons why they could not into planning - e.g. EA). How did they achieve the success with the first title? By being focused. Why did they fuck up Mass Effect and DA2? Because they lacked focus and proper planning. Let me remind you that the whole argument is based on the question: How can this be Dragon Age: Origins is better than Dragon Age 2?

lol

They had a plan, Mrowak. It was a plan to cash in with a rushed, casualized game. The only unexpected factor was that the fans caught on and called them on their bullshit. Unexpected because they did the same thing with ME2 and nobody cared (including people on the Codex)
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,506
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Nobody cared about ME2 because it improved on aspects of the original, while DA2 is all around worse.

Maybe. Regardless, I think people were way too forgiving about the game throwing out RPG elements, and that attitude had consequences.

It taught Bioware that they could throw out RPG elements and actually receive critical praise for it. "No stats, and not even the RPGCodex cares! Let's go full retard!!"
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
Strawman argument. A (Dragon Age) has little to do with B and C (Mass Effect ans SWTOR). The fact of the matter is Dragon Age is a well-made game. That Mass Effect and TOR are not is meaningless (because there can be thousands of reasons why they could not into planning - e.g. EA). How did they achieve the success with the first title? By being focused. Why did they fuck up Mass Effect and DA2? Because they lacked focus and proper planning. Let me remind you that the whole argument is based on the question: How can this be Dragon Age: Origins is better than Dragon Age 2?

lol

They had a plan, Mrowak. It was a plan to cash in with a rushed, casualized game.

I meant plan for the project, not their marketing. It is clear that DA:O was an excelently planned and carried out project - they must have worked on it long before EA era.

Also don't ascribe to ill will what can be equally well-explained by sheer stupidity. I think that Bioware wanted to make a good game. Their overlords in EA wanted DA2 to be a success, but with minimal costs on their part. That and clueless marketing shills that just had to make gameplay more "welcoming". So they rushed the thing, scratched the previous working plan, made another, poor one, created a new system from the scratch, even though they didn't have the resources for it and generally fucked up. Unfortunately this is quite common in software development, when your bosses/clients do not have a slightest clue of how you achieved you previous success. They just demand.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,506
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
So they rushed the thing, scratched the previous working plan, made another, poor one, created a new system from the scratch, even though they didn't have the resources for it and generally fucked up.

So, what's your conclusion? Any new plan is a bad plan? A game's systems absolutely need years of planning to turn out well?

That may be so. If we're going to draw parallels with Project Eternity, though, I would say that it's pretty obvious the PE's systems are going to be a culmination of various thoughts about game design that Josh Sawyer has had over his entire career as a designer. So it's not like these systems are being developed entirely from scratch.
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
So they rushed the thing, scratched the previous working plan, made another, poor one, created a new system from the scratch, even though they didn't have the resources for it and generally fucked up.

So, what's your conclusion? Any new plan is a bad plan?

No, but any new plan needs:

a) time to be created,
b) time to be executed,

Bioware had ready template from DA:O with loads of assets ready. It was the matter of adding stuff and altering them a little bit to achieve greater results. They didn't have to care about the gameplay - they had it ready. And good gameplay is the most difficult thing to achieve.

Think about what happen between BG1 and BG2. Now imagine that instead of taking advantage of previous plan and ready system, Bioware dicided to make a first-person RPG. The entire gameplay would have to be overhauled. All art assets, interfaces, gameplay philosophy would have to be done from the scratch and consume loads of working hours.


A game's systems absolutely need years of planning to turn out well?

Not years of planning, but years of execution of the plan. If you have a ready template, ready assets, and ready core gameplay the development time is shortened significantly. If you scrap it, you are back at level 0.

You underestimate how difficult it is to create gameplay. It's not about throwing 1000 ideas. It's about making those ideas work together and sometimes resigning from those which simply do not fit the scope of the game/project, however cool they sound.

That may be so. If we're going to draw parallels with Project Eternity, though, I would say that it's pretty obvious the PE's systems are going to be a culmination of various thoughts about game design that Josh Sawyer has had over his entire career as a designer. So it's not like these systems are being developed entirely from scratch.

Sorry, but it is. Josh's lose thoughts about RPGs don't really cut it. They may be fine ideas, but fine ideas on their own - without proper context layed out by a careful plan the team agreed on. His ideas should have been written down, discussed and put together before the put their campaign on kickstarter for the budget they initially asked for. After all, plans are not that expensive to make, right? Once that basic template was ready they could easily expand upon the project and give the promises thay were laid down in the plan with consideration on how much time and money they would consume. I would call that very professional. As it is, Obsidian did not impress me with their display of professionalism.

But I think we have had enough of this discussion.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,876,064
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
Nobody cared about ME2 because it improved on aspects of the original, while DA2 is all around worse.

Maybe. Regardless, I think people were way too forgiving about the game throwing out RPG elements, and that attitude had consequences.

It taught Bioware that they could throw out RPG elements and actually receive critical praise for it. "No stats, and not even the RPGCodex cares! Let's go full retard!!"

The RPG elements weren't necessary for the type of game they wanted to make, it shows with ME2. Not every game is improved by throwing stats at it.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,506
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The RPG elements weren't necessary for the type of game they wanted to make, it shows with ME2. Not every game is improved by throwing stats at it.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize that not every game is improved by removing stats from it, either.
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
Actually it had 1.5 year

Excuse me? 1.5 years of what?


Hmm... it appears you are right. DA was announced during E3 2004, even though the project had some difficulties, and was suspended a few times. It's difficult to determine how long it was really developed (Bioware made a few other games in that time), but my rough estimate is 3 years.


I'm talking about DA:O itself, not about DA2. How were DA:O's systems good?

Let's put it, it was much better than in any game made by the competition. I gave you my ideas on what I found compelling in it earlier, and I do not feel like repeating myself.
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
The RPG elements weren't necessary for the type of game they wanted to make, it shows with ME2. Not every game is improved by throwing stats at it.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize that not every game is improved by removing stats from it, either.

Actually, gameplaywise ME 2 is vastly superior to its predecessor. The thing is, it's a cover-based shooter with idiotic plot instead of spastic "I wanna be a shooter" RPG.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
I've seen a few people mention that DA:O was competent in all aspects, that it was overall a solid game that didn't get anything completely wrong, but I see it as a game that didn't really do many things right either. We've already discussed the combat so I wont go back to it, but I found the character development pretty bad as well since skills and abilities are so unimaginative, the spell selection is so limited and your attributes get so inflated so fast that putting one point somewhere makes no visible difference after you've gained a few levels. That still wouldn't be enough to ruin the game, because some of my favorite games have worse combat and character development. DA:O just doesn't really shine on any other department either.

The quest design is just terrible. Most actual quests in the game are linear as hell and make you run from one cutscene to another. You may get to make some pointless choice at some point (most likely at the very end of the quest), but that's about it. Then there are the utterly mindless "collect x things of boredom" quests that make up a majority of the game's side quests. It's just inexcusable. The dungeons are incredibly repetitive, partly because of the level design and partly because of the encounter design, so going through them isn't much fun either. Most of these same flaws are present in, say, KotOR (except that it didn't have those horrible filler quests), but even that game stays enjoyable because it has a pretty good pacing between combat and dialogue, and the locations are usually pretty small so that you can go through them pretty quickly before getting bored. DA:O's pacing is just terrible, and for every interesting piece of content you get hours of trash mob fights against the same three enemies. There's about as much meaningful content in DA:O as there is in Mass Effect, but it takes three times longer to finish the game.

Some of this might be salvaged with good writing, but... no. The dialogue is at best decent, at worst it's gay elves talking about their leather fetish or something equally retarded. What kind of a world do these characters live in? Why does everyone want to have sex with my character who is a total asshole anyway? At times you get a good piece of dialogue, but inane banter outweighs it ten to one. The characters are walking fantasy/BioWare clichés. The first actual recruitable NPC is Carth Onasi / Kaidan Alenko with a lower IQ and worse sense of humour. You also have a slightly less innocent Imoen, a morally questionable warrior with an exotic background (basically exactly the same character as Urdnot Wrex and Canderous Ordo), a dwarf fighter who likes drinking and so on. Loghain is the worst villain I've seen in a BioWare game and basically a total clown who is hard to take seriously at any point of the game. He keeps shooting himself in the foot all the time and never comes off as the military genius the game tries to portray him as. The story follows the usual BioWare pattern so closely that you'll know the place of every plot twist before you've even started the game, not to mention that the story itself is as generic as it gets. When you open up the dictionary and look for the word "bland", there's a map of Thedas right there.

I guess you also have to give credit where credit is due, though, and I really liked the origin stories. I only played the Dalish elf one so I don't know about the rest, but I thought it was more interesting and better written than the rest of the game despite the fact that it was a really generic story that has been seen a million times (a kid finds a mysterious artifact from mysterious ruins and then has to leave his village to save the world). I also liked most of the PC dialogue as I rarely felt that my character was forced to say something I didn't want him to say. So yeah, I felt those two things were done right. Other than that, I see it as an utterly mediocre game that really suffers from being too long, repetitive and bland in every way. I think I dislike DA:O for the same reasons that many people dislike DA2, it's just that the first game still had one foot in the closet whereas the sequel is proudly waving the rainbow flag at the head of the parade.
 

Bulba

Learned
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
518
We may not have liked it, but we certainly cared.

speak for youself, there was no we

Well, last time I checked the main Mass Effect thread was like 400 pages long. So speak for yourself - we did care.

90% of posts are probably yours. I can see now what sort of person may enjoy da:o. yep go retard ALL THE WAY
I'm pretty sure that if you or anyone would make a pole, at least 70% would say that they didn't care. if minority of retards did... none of my problem
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
We may not have liked it, but we certainly cared.

speak for youself, there was no we

Well, last time I checked the main Mass Effect thread was like 400 pages long. So speak for yourself - we did care.

90% of posts are probably yours. I can see now what sort of person may enjoy da:o. yep go retard ALL THE WAY
I'm pretty sure that if you or anyone would make a pole, at least 70% would say that they didn't care. if minority of retards did... none of my problem

Aww.. personal slurs and missing the fucking point. What a disappointment.

I know the whole "passive-aggressive" thing is popular at the 'Dex, but come the fuck on! Everyone cared when the first one was released even if it was all about the barrel of laughs at sheer incompetence. Whether you liked or not, everyone wanted to discuss it. I remember all the doom prophets proclaiming how ME will be the downfall of entire RPG genre. It has to be admitted, that for better or for worse it does have an impact on it. Whether it was the impact Bioware expected, that's another matter altogether.
 

evdk

comrade troglodyte :M
Patron
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
11,292
Location
Corona regni Bohemiae
Codex 2012 Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
If anything, ME further diluted the mainstream definition of an RPG. One stop closer to the "Halo is an RPG because you play the role of Master Chief" future, as seen in the Youtube comments of today.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,631
The RPG elements weren't necessary for the type of game they wanted to make, it shows with ME2. Not every game is improved by throwing stats at it.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize that not every game is improved by removing stats from it, either.

Actually, gameplaywise ME 2 is vastly superior to its predecessor. The thing is, it's a cover-based shooter with idiotic plot instead of spastic "I wanna be a shooter" RPG.
The gameplay in ME1 was more fun. ME2 removed the "pistol and grenades tech powers with huge shields" combo that I built my infiltrator into. ME2 railroaded that class into the sniper rifle so I switched to Vanguard but all of the classes were pretty much forced into playing a cover shooter. That was not the case in ME1.
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
The RPG elements weren't necessary for the type of game they wanted to make, it shows with ME2. Not every game is improved by throwing stats at it.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize that not every game is improved by removing stats from it, either.

Actually, gameplaywise ME 2 is vastly superior to its predecessor. The thing is, it's a cover-based shooter with idiotic plot instead of spastic "I wanna be a shooter" RPG.
The gameplay in ME1 was more fun. ME2 removed the "pistol and grenades tech powers with huge shields" combo that I built my infiltrator into. ME2 railroaded that class into the sniper rifle so I switched to Vanguard but all of the classes were pretty much forced into playing a cover shooter. That was not the case in ME1.


I don't know bro. All of the mechanics you speak of were present there, but they somehow felt lackluster. Shooting things was not fun, the levels were not that interesting, and most of skills were solely stat-based. It really felt to me as if Bioware wanted to make a shooter but added loads of redundant things to make it seem it is an RPG. So as a result we had a game that sucked as a shooter and an RPG. The only thing I find was vastly superior was the plot - as pulpy as it was it actually made some sense.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom