Stitch on 14/12/2009 at 15:48
Quote Posted by mothra
it has not. it's butt fuck ugly.
Actually, you're half right. Dragon Age has pretty great architecture and scenery that is rendered butt fuck ugly primarily by horrible lighting (although the low rez textures don't help, either). Neverwinter Nights was similar; I know from personal experience that you could turn off all room lighting and instead place light sources, and yet every module I ever played just used Bioware's default horrible colored lighting scheme.
As for Dragon Age: I'd love to see Orzammar properly lit, with alleys stretching into darkness, lamps and torches causing long shadows, and the flow of magma giving chambers an orange glow, but instead we get weird non-sourced lighting that gives no sense of place. It's incredibly frustrating.
AxTng1 on 14/12/2009 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Stitch
Orzammar properly lit, with alleys stretching into darkness, lamps and torches causing long shadows, and the flow of magma giving chambers an orange glow, but instead we get weird non-sourced lighting that gives no sense of place. It's incredibly frustrating.
That sounds pretty cool, but Ironforge doesn't have it.
Quote Posted by Dak'kon
In *knowing* the teachings of Zerthimon, I have become stronger
Pidesco on 14/12/2009 at 18:38
One of the greatest games of all time, made better by the fact that it's about the only RPG ever where the good gameplay in it isn't based on combat at all.
Malleus on 14/12/2009 at 19:59
Yeah seriously ... not too many games out there where the final confrontation with the antagonist is a frickin dialog. :)
Aerothorn on 14/12/2009 at 21:47
Replayed this a few months ago. Has its reputation inflated its quality beyond its own merits? Yeah, I think it probably has (though in its defense, that tends to happen to any game that people claim is BEST GAME EVER). There are definitely times it takes itself a bit too seriously, can't quite bear the weight of its own faux-philosophical conviction, etc. The combat could be better, there are bugs, and so on. Yet I still had a blast playing it - I found it thoroughly compelling and for all the missteps there is a LOT of good writing in there, as well a uniformly excellent characters (well, except maybe Annah). Both the level of interactivity with the world and the degree of choice the player has within the constraints of the game's narrative is extremely ambitious. As Stitch says, it's a real shame they don't do this anymore.
Bonus fact: PS:T could never be made today because the amount of text is so extensive that voice-acting would cost a small fortune. Even Bioware games don't have this much text. Of course, they're apparently financing just such a project wtih The Old Republic, but that's a cash-cow MMORPG; it would never happen for a single-player RPG with an obscure license.
Renzatic on 14/12/2009 at 23:20
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Bonus fact: PS:T could never be made today because the amount of text is so extensive that voice-acting would cost a small fortune.
Not that I'd necessarily want them to try to make a game with the breadth and scope of PS:T with full voice acting. Generally with games, I feel I get more involved with a story and its characters when I read most of the conversations as text with mimed reactions rather than hearing them spoken.
I'd say I feel that way because character animations and facial cues aren't quite up to realistic standards just yet, and don't quite mesh up to the voice acting. The more generalized it is, the more my imagination automatically fills in the blanks. Kind of an uncanny valley situation, I guess.
Pidesco on 14/12/2009 at 23:51
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Bonus fact: PS:T could never be made today because the amount of text is so extensive that voice-acting would cost a small fortune. Even Bioware games don't have this much text.
Voice acting costs have really been holding back writing in RPGs. In Mass Effect, for example, it's really visible how they had to write the dialogue around the VA budget. The concept of exposition through conversation is completely destroyed in ME because of it, turning every other "dialogue" into wooden monologues interspersed with simple questions. I really don't understand why more people didn't complain about it.
In any case, RPGs haven't been helped by advancing technology, except superficially. Combat in PC RPGs is still completely 2D for example, turning camera movement into an unwieldy, useless mess. It's an extra interface that has no ingame use other than showing the bling.
Also, closeups of character conversations practically force VA on us, because having detailed mute heads nodding at one another is just idiotic. In DA, for example, the main character's lack of VO not only forced Bioware to hide the PC's face at almost all times, but took away whatever little personality he might have. Also, combat animation just looks odd with all the characters blankly swinging swords at one another, like freaking robots.
Really, all 3D RPGs, with the partial exception of Mass Effect, don't need a 3D engine at all, unless their consumer base is one big bunch of shallow, mouth-breathing retards.
june gloom on 15/12/2009 at 00:15
Quote Posted by Pidesco
Really, all 3D RPGs, with the partial exception of Mass Effect, don't need a 3D engine at all, unless their consumer base is one big bunch of shallow, mouth-breathing retards.
And people accuse me of making cartoonish overstatements.
Aerothorn on 15/12/2009 at 01:19
Agreed that it *shouldn't* have voice acting, but (outside of some console RPGs) it's just the market these days: all games require voice acting. It's obnoxious.
CCCToad on 15/12/2009 at 01:22
Quote Posted by Pidesco
In any case, RPGs haven't been helped by advancing technology, except superficially. Combat in PC RPGs is still completely 2D for example, turning camera movement into an unwieldy, useless mess. It's an extra interface that has no ingame use other than showing the bling.
But if we still had two dimensional RPG's, they'd have to sell the games with gameplay, story, and writing instead of graphics, celebrity voice actors and sex. You wouldn't want that now, would you?
