@mf2112 - I think you are a gamer, only. And I mean it most kindly.
But was it not that sort of setting "hard core" gamer aside from PC gamers that allowed DA: Inquisition to be a bleeding heart of disappointment to PC gamers? When BW existed unto then on enthusiasm of PC gamers?
I just want to say: if corporate game development wants to drop PC gamers, please do it fair n square! Not like DA:I where gameplay for PC and melee CHARs just simply sucks!
(PS. I envy and love you DA:I fans whom can love melee combat, but I love DA:O and DA2 much better, as PC gamer perso)
So you disliked DA:I because it is a console port, but liked DA2?
Making my way through Inquisition now actually(i skipped DA 2) and while Origins wasn't perfect, at least it had the right idea and heart imo. Inquisition is ugh...stripped down to the bare essentials with generally terrible quest design.
Yes automatically distributed attributes.. Just what I need...
Making my way through Inquisition now actually(i skipped DA 2) and while Origins wasn't perfect, at least it had the right idea and heart imo. Inquisition is ugh...stripped down to the bare essentials with generally terrible quest design.
Yes automatically distributed attributes.. Just what I need...
I forced myself through 80 hours of Inquisition since I was told it gets better and I like to finish a game at least before I decide to hate it forever.
Inquisition, while pretty and has decent characters, fails on the narrative front with how boring a villain Coripha-whatever was and mechanically barely works on PC with a camera that gets stuck on ceilings and trees. It's like no one play-tested the isometric camera before it got shipped. Not to mention archers deciding melee is the best place to stand and walking too far away from your ranged characters causes them to teleport to you.
The tactics system in DA:O was perfect but now we've decided being able to program the AI is a bad thing or something. Even NWN2 at least got a decent set of mods to fix its AI troubles but DA:I is like PSSSHTT, no mods for you!
If you told me you do Angry Birds on a tram, I'd find you my fellow gamer.
But when you tell me you game deeply, I'd expect you to understand why PC gamers quite love their platform.
I am not giving up my PC. I use it regularly for gaming and I don't intend on stopping. I just see that other platforms have grown technologically to the point that they are viable for more than just angry birds. I think there is plenty of room for both and I appreciate devs who can do both well. Most can't.
There is plenty of room. But I think you are willfully obtuse about PC gamers, as if, say PC fans should not be cold and bothered about Inquisition. Why so, if?
I am sorry if I was unclear. I am a PC gamer. I am also an Android gamer. I think both are excellent platforms. I would prefer all games be available and fully functional on any platform but I understand budgets and time and that may not be realistic for every company.
Have you wondered why computer RPGs never manage to get even half of the popularity of other indipendent games like Undertale? I don't mention the juggernaut that is FNAF because that would be an unfair fight.
Is "cRPG" really ... = computer (or PC) RPG?
I've always wondered about that, but you tell me if I got it right! If I got you right, this was an "aha" moment! I won't say heureka, because that involved serious fluid and element physics.
I would assume because the mainstream RPGs have been such well written and executed games up until now. Some of the best titles in game narrative across all genres have been in RPG.
However, both Skyrim and DA: Inquisition were day zero console ports - and poor ones, at that, IMO - and my PC gamer heart bleeds on both accounts.
If the mainstream RPG will further abandon its PC fanciers, I think this discussion will change tack.
@TStael The entire TES series started as a console game that got ported over to the pc, but its fame comes from its pc counterpart which allowed things to be done that console players cry tears wishing they could do. I'm going have to ask for a source stating that inquisition what you meant. Or am I misunderstanding you and you meant they were poorly ported over to the console?
Source: "bleeding heart PC gamer interpretation"! :-p Normally I probably overuse "IMO", "in my view" etc but sorry if this was not clear.
Officially DA:Inquisition was of course same-day parallel release - with some sever quality assurance problems for PC, it can be fairly added.
However, I personally consider it a "day zero console port" because i have no other explanation why BioWare would all of a sudden forget that a mouse has functionalities that greatly improve fluidity of PC gameplay. Such as right or left click to attack, move or loot.
Or where has disappeared full bottom-screen short-cut menu where a PC gamer could drag pretty much all skills or usable inventory items for "click to use" without a predetermined hot-key? The limitation of DA:I to eight skills was a very frustrating and needless from my perspective.
I hopped TES bandwagon on Morrowind, so did not actually know it has its roots in console. Interesting!
I am sure you were quite clear @mf2112. I just am way too touchy about PC gaming in RPG genre which has disappointed me profoundly in recent times, and do apologize for my rantiness.
There are not many game engines, for example, I'd be excited about, but with Infinity, I was very happily impressed about Unity precisely because it lowered threshold to multi-platform.
I used to love TES and BG to DA series to distraction, even unlike most finding DA2 absolutely superb. I used to be an outright fan of Bethesda and BioWare.
However, in my view, both Skyrim and Inquisition are disappointing in terms of PC specific playability, and have these "grind" time-killing or highly repetitive gameplay elements I'd not expect from PC RPGs.
So yeah, maybe cRPG actually is really a niche product. (Imagine a smiley here with eyes widening with horrified realisation)
I'm actually really pained thinking this is possibly so! If Numenara disappoints I probably have to find a corner to have a good cry in...
@TStael The entire TES series started as a console game that got ported over to the pc, but its fame comes from its pc counterpart which allowed things to be done that console players cry tears wishing they could do. I'm going have to ask for a source stating that inquisition what you meant. Or am I misunderstanding you and you meant they were poorly ported over to the console?
TES: Arena was the first TES game ever and was produced for the PC. So was TESII:Daggerfall, Battlespire, and Redguard. I believe the first TES game that was made for console and PC simultaneously was TESIII: Morrowind, some eight years after Arena's publication. There were also some early mobile games but I don't recall their names.
Welp, my memory told me to go ef myself than, but my statement still stands that they do have a strong fanbase, which literally means that slappng TES on he game will still pull a profit in this day and age compared to a generi fantasyland game that is made from scratch.
Morrowind was also designed for computer first and then ported to consoles, as you can tell from, among other things, the inventory/character sheet which I can only assume was a complete nightmare to navigate without a mouse.
@TStael - what do you even mean by "day zero console ports"? Are you conflating the term "console port" with "day one DLC"?
Making my way through Inquisition now actually(i skipped DA 2) and while Origins wasn't perfect, at least it had the right idea and heart imo. Inquisition is ugh...stripped down to the bare essentials with generally terrible quest design.
Yes automatically distributed attributes.. Just what I need...
I forced myself through 80 hours of Inquisition since I was told it gets better and I like to finish a game at least before I decide to hate it forever.
Inquisition, while pretty and has decent characters, fails on the narrative front with how boring a villain Coripha-whatever was and mechanically barely works on PC with a camera that gets stuck on ceilings and trees. It's like no one play-tested the isometric camera before it got shipped. Not to mention archers deciding melee is the best place to stand and walking too far away from your ranged characters causes them to teleport to you.
The tactics system in DA:O was perfect but now we've decided being able to program the AI is a bad thing or something. Even NWN2 at least got a decent set of mods to fix its AI troubles but DA:I is like PSSSHTT, no mods for you!
/could rant forever.
We have highjacked the thread now, but yes the tactical camera was also an issue for me, it's pretty much useless. I've just gone full mage spam and all I really need is one tank on normal difficulty, I don't even bother playing on higher difficulties.
Mostly though the redundant grindy quest and blandness that TStael mentioned, is what really exhausted me, although I don't have to do any of them. I end up taking frequent breaks and I'm not even that far into the story yet.
Adding several hours of gameplay time through collectibles and other crap is what really annoys me about shallow open world games. I haven't tested Witcher 3 yet, but I hear that game is much better in that regard.
Also it made me think that Solas is the perfect example why elves should never go bald>_>
@TStael - what do you even mean by "day zero console ports"? Are you coflating the term "console port" with "day one DLC"?
No, I am not.
It is a term I have coined to simply describe publishers that in their marketing communication claim to publish cross-platfrom games optimizing the end-user interface and game-play experience equitably, but de facto have major quality differences.
To explain a bit further, we can take DA: Inquisition as an example.
It is formally a parallel multi-platform release, but the patching that the PC version needed to be playable was IMO simply obscene. Plus Mac OS had been dropped.
Add to that the user interface. Inventory interfaces that I suspect simply replicated shuffling up and down with a controller; lack of mouse controlled actions (auto attack, loot, path-find) - plus even the lack of dynamic hot-bar mapping...
To me, compared with DA:O or DA2 that play to the strengths and features of the PC platform in game-design, DA:I is very disappointing.
Welp, my memory told me to go ef myself than, but my statement still stands that they do have a strong fanbase, which literally means that slappng TES on he game will still pull a profit in this day and age compared to a generi fantasyland game that is made from scratch.
Yes, they definitely have a strong fanbase. They're doing something right, as much as people may hate on their games.
However, I personally consider it a "day zero console port" because i have no other explanation why BioWare would all of a sudden forget that a mouse has functionalities that greatly improve fluidity of PC gameplay. Such as right or left click to attack, move or loot.
I would: Bioware is godawful at UI design and always, always has been.
I mean, you're probably right (since there's way more money in console game development, so it will be the development priority), but my default explanation for any catastrophic Bioware failure at UI design is "because Bioware".
(Having played DA:I on console, I consider its UI and several gameplay elements like crafting to be godawful there, too.)
However, I personally consider it a "day zero console port" because i have no other explanation why BioWare would all of a sudden forget that a mouse has functionalities
I would: Bioware is godawful at UI design and always, always has been.
I think you are maybe just a bit harsh.
My gaming focus is pretty narrow - PC story driven/high fantasy RPGs on the main, but certainly I rejoice and respect what BioWare has contributed up until Inquisition. I will not pre-order the next one, but I am and remain thankful to BW for BG, PS:T and DA games.
To me, DA:O and The Witcher signalled the post-Infinity engine revival of RPG that took a lot of wind unto its sails from KickStarter. Recommend to check out Larian, in case Divinity series is unknown to any RPG fancier.
If BioWare had never published anything for PC before, then Inquisition would be ok. But not when BioWare was the PC RPG developer, IMO.
I'm dubious about calling the Witcher games RPGs at all. You play as a preset character with limited customisation, with a largely twitch based combat system.
I'm dubious about calling the Witcher games RPGs at all. You play as a preset character with limited customisation, with a largely twitch based combat system.
You play as preset character (and the protagonist character from the novels), because in the lore, there are very few Witchers, partially because they aren't any "new" ones. Creating a new witcher character would be pretty much violation of the lore.
Other problem with creating your own witcher would be the fact that he would be without any personality or relationships whatsoever. Even if custom made witcher would have some interractions with characters (at least some) people know from novels, said interractions would be much less interesting.
The Witcher games are rpgs. They still have character customization - it's limited exactly because you play as, well, the Witcher, but it's still there. The world is well-defined, with it's characters, interractions, choices and the consequences of said choices. It's plot-based rpg. I don't know what combat system has to do with it being or not being rpg.
I'm not really saying that the Witcher games shouldn't be the way they are, just that I wouldn't class them as RPGs. I would class them with games like Tomb Raider and Far Cry.
I'm not really saying that the Witcher games shouldn't be the way they are, just that I wouldn't class them as RPGs. I would class them with games like Tomb Raider and Far Cry.
You have very narrow definition of rpgs then. And I'm sure that's not a good thing.
I'm not really saying that the Witcher games shouldn't be the way they are, just that I wouldn't class them as RPGs. I would class them with games like Tomb Raider and Far Cry.
You have very narrow definition of rpgs then. And I'm sure that's not a good thing.
I would say that the ability to create your own character is the core of what an RPG is.
It doesn't mean I object to those other games in any way - they are perfectly good games. I just don't see any way to class them as RPGs when your "role" is pre-determined.
I would say that the ability to create your own character is the core of what an RPG is.
It doesn't mean I object to those other games in any way - they are perfectly good games. I just don't see any way to class them as RPGs when your "role" is pre-determined.
The Witcher games have tons of meaningful moral choices you make as your amnesiac sex god albino (indeed, this is one of the major selling points of the series). That's more "role playing" than many, many RPGs where you create your character from scratch.
Besides, the vast majority of popular RPGs for like a decade were JRPGs, which rarely let you create your own character. A definition of RPGs that excludes a huge percentage of games that are marketed as, sold as, and consumed as RPGs is a flawed definition.
(Plus then you'd have to get into exactly how much customisation is required to count, and you'd also have to fend off the PNP grognards that don't think any computer or console game is a true RPG because you never have true freedom of action, and etc, etc, etc.)
I guess even Planescape: Torment isn't an rpg. Right?
It's borderline. You at least can customise stats and which class you focus on, and you have a lot of options to express personality in dialogue. So you can play it through multiple times with very different experiences for the main character.
And as I said, any definition of RPGs that excludes a huge percentage of games that are marketed as, sold as, and consumed as RPGs is a flawed definition.
(Also, the JRPG and WRPG terms are extremely misleading, since many Japanese games are "WRPGs", and some western games have more in common with classic JRPGs than they do with something like Skyrim.)
The problem is that @Diogenes42 ended that discussion on the first reply. Not literally, granted, but for all intents and purposes. There is no agreed-upon definition of an RPG, no criterion that applies to the whole genre. Both this thread and that one are microcosms of this. Most people's definitions tend towards their personal tastes (i.e., games with action-based combat systems are not "real RPGs").
Comments
Like
Why can't I be a bard anymore?
Edit: Off topic but I take any chance I can on ridiculing DA2/DA:I mechanics.
Yes automatically distributed attributes.. Just what I need...
Inquisition, while pretty and has decent characters, fails on the narrative front with how boring a villain Coripha-whatever was and mechanically barely works on PC with a camera that gets stuck on ceilings and trees. It's like no one play-tested the isometric camera before it got shipped. Not to mention archers deciding melee is the best place to stand and walking too far away from your ranged characters causes them to teleport to you.
The tactics system in DA:O was perfect but now we've decided being able to program the AI is a bad thing or something. Even NWN2 at least got a decent set of mods to fix its AI troubles but DA:I is like PSSSHTT, no mods for you!
/could rant forever.
The entire TES series started as a console game that got ported over to the pc, but its fame comes from its pc counterpart which allowed things to be done that console players cry tears wishing they could do. I'm going have to ask for a source stating that inquisition what you meant. Or am I misunderstanding you and you meant they were poorly ported over to the console?
Source: "bleeding heart PC gamer interpretation"! :-p Normally I probably overuse "IMO", "in my view" etc but sorry if this was not clear.
Officially DA:Inquisition was of course same-day parallel release - with some sever quality assurance problems for PC, it can be fairly added.
However, I personally consider it a "day zero console port" because i have no other explanation why BioWare would all of a sudden forget that a mouse has functionalities that greatly improve fluidity of PC gameplay. Such as right or left click to attack, move or loot.
Or where has disappeared full bottom-screen short-cut menu where a PC gamer could drag pretty much all skills or usable inventory items for "click to use" without a predetermined hot-key? The limitation of DA:I to eight skills was a very frustrating and needless from my perspective.
I hopped TES bandwagon on Morrowind, so did not actually know it has its roots in console. Interesting!
There are not many game engines, for example, I'd be excited about, but with Infinity, I was very happily impressed about Unity precisely because it lowered threshold to multi-platform.
I used to love TES and BG to DA series to distraction, even unlike most finding DA2 absolutely superb. I used to be an outright fan of Bethesda and BioWare.
However, in my view, both Skyrim and Inquisition are disappointing in terms of PC specific playability, and have these "grind" time-killing or highly repetitive gameplay elements I'd not expect from PC RPGs.
So yeah, maybe cRPG actually is really a niche product. (Imagine a smiley here with eyes widening with horrified realisation)
I'm actually really pained thinking this is possibly so! If Numenara disappoints I probably have to find a corner to have a good cry in...
Arena and Daggerfall are MS-DOS games. So unless there was a console that ran MS-DOS I'm pretty sure they were PC exclusives.
Welp, my memory told me to go ef myself than, but my statement still stands that they do have a strong fanbase, which literally means that slappng TES on he game will still pull a profit in this day and age compared to a generi fantasyland game that is made from scratch.
@TStael - what do you even mean by "day zero console ports"? Are you conflating the term "console port" with "day one DLC"?
Mostly though the redundant grindy quest and blandness that TStael mentioned, is what really exhausted me, although I don't have to do any of them. I end up taking frequent breaks and I'm not even that far into the story yet.
Adding several hours of gameplay time through collectibles and other crap is what really annoys me about shallow open world games. I haven't tested Witcher 3 yet, but I hear that game is much better in that regard.
Also it made me think that Solas is the perfect example why elves should never go bald>_>
It is a term I have coined to simply describe publishers that in their marketing communication claim to publish cross-platfrom games optimizing the end-user interface and game-play experience equitably, but de facto have major quality differences.
To explain a bit further, we can take DA: Inquisition as an example.
It is formally a parallel multi-platform release, but the patching that the PC version needed to be playable was IMO simply obscene. Plus Mac OS had been dropped.
Add to that the user interface. Inventory interfaces that I suspect simply replicated shuffling up and down with a controller; lack of mouse controlled actions (auto attack, loot, path-find) - plus even the lack of dynamic hot-bar mapping...
To me, compared with DA:O or DA2 that play to the strengths and features of the PC platform in game-design, DA:I is very disappointing.
I mean, you're probably right (since there's way more money in console game development, so it will be the development priority), but my default explanation for any catastrophic Bioware failure at UI design is "because Bioware".
(Having played DA:I on console, I consider its UI and several gameplay elements like crafting to be godawful there, too.)
My gaming focus is pretty narrow - PC story driven/high fantasy RPGs on the main, but certainly I rejoice and respect what BioWare has contributed up until Inquisition. I will not pre-order the next one, but I am and remain thankful to BW for BG, PS:T and DA games.
To me, DA:O and The Witcher signalled the post-Infinity engine revival of RPG that took a lot of wind unto its sails from KickStarter. Recommend to check out Larian, in case Divinity series is unknown to any RPG fancier.
If BioWare had never published anything for PC before, then Inquisition would be ok. But not when BioWare was the PC RPG developer, IMO.
*grumble grumble*
Other problem with creating your own witcher would be the fact that he would be without any personality or relationships whatsoever. Even if custom made witcher would have some interractions with characters (at least some) people know from novels, said interractions would be much less interesting.
The Witcher games are rpgs. They still have character customization - it's limited exactly because you play as, well, the Witcher, but it's still there. The world is well-defined, with it's characters, interractions, choices and the consequences of said choices. It's plot-based rpg. I don't know what combat system has to do with it being or not being rpg.
It doesn't mean I object to those other games in any way - they are perfectly good games. I just don't see any way to class them as RPGs when your "role" is pre-determined.
Besides, the vast majority of popular RPGs for like a decade were JRPGs, which rarely let you create your own character. A definition of RPGs that excludes a huge percentage of games that are marketed as, sold as, and consumed as RPGs is a flawed definition.
(Plus then you'd have to get into exactly how much customisation is required to count, and you'd also have to fend off the PNP grognards that don't think any computer or console game is a true RPG because you never have true freedom of action, and etc, etc, etc.)
In fact, the discussion for that is right here~
/self advertisement
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/56413/what-is-an-rpg/p1
(Also, the JRPG and WRPG terms are extremely misleading, since many Japanese games are "WRPGs", and some western games have more in common with classic JRPGs than they do with something like Skyrim.) The problem is that @Diogenes42 ended that discussion on the first reply. Not literally, granted, but for all intents and purposes.