why do people like these games?

[Buzzerker]

I bought Pillars of Eternity , thought it would be incredible but I hated it. I think Bioware does a better job at making these kinds of games. Now I realize i will get some hate over this but one game in particular , Dragon Age 2 , I love the way they handled combat in that game. I hate Inquisition and the story of Dragon Age needs to be better but the interactions between characters , the cutscenes , the progression of the story it's just far superior to games like these that mimic Baldur's Gate , which is the progenitor of this 'style' of rpg. Too bad Bioware strayed off their own beaten path , they were making new ground into old territory instead of what this game does. I didn't buy it , but I saw the videos , I'm sure the writing is enjoyable but I just cannot get into the gameplay itself , I think games like Baldur's Gate and all it's successors should be buried alive and forgotten. Used as a foundation for progression into something better. Tyranny is a step in the opposite direction. Even if it has some qualities to it.

[Buzzerker]

GND Jester님이 먼저 게시:

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

so for many of you Roleplaying is what you like about games like this....rather than the actual quaiity of the graphics , the mechanics of the game. Let me ask you people this , what do you think of a game like Shadow of Mordor?

Graphics = role-playing? Okay then, that settles that. What mechanics? What are you actually talking about? Do you have any experience with pen and paper RPGs?

Yes when I was a child haven't played them in decades. Again those kinds of games are precursors to PC games , pen and paper games like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons are the ancestors of the PC rpg. without them , the PC rpg would not exist in the form it is in today.

[Big Boom Boom]

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

DA2 has one of the worst combat I have ever seen. Unless you have never played tab targeting MMORPG before and thought it's revolutionary or something, because it's almost exactly that. While I do like tab targeting MMORPG, I would rather play one than seeing it in a single player game.

I disagree , although not perfect , it think it was a step in the evoliutinary process that could have made a game like Tyranny better than what it is now.

It's not revolutionary, it's a very old ageing approach. Even among MMO genre action combat free targeting is the new norm. One where you don't auto attack for example. There's a reason why SWTOR wasn't the WoW killer EA was looking for and went F2P very fast.

[Buzzerker]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

Pillars and Tyranny are very beautiful, they went for a hand drawn approach. In contrast, Dragon Age are not impressive graphically compared to say The Witcher 3. Why do you want to bring graphics up?

Because that is one of the things a PC does. It presents media in a graphical format in an unprecedented way. Games like Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity , in my perview do not utilize that capacity to the extent it could be utilized. The Witcher series is one of my favorites by the way.

[Buzzerker]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

I disagree , although not perfect , it think it was a step in the evoliutinary process that could have made a game like Tyranny better than what it is now.

It's not revolutionary, it's a very old ageing approach. Even among MMO genre action combat free targeting is the new norm. One where you don't auto attack for example. There's a reason why SWTOR wasn't the WoW killer EA was looking for and went F2P very fast.

Mixing action in a turn based way with higher quality grapical content is not revolutionary to you? Actually I said 'evolutionary' and not revolutionary. MMORPG's are a different subject. Tyranny uses the 'Baldur's Gate' approach and it is older than DA2.

[Big Boom Boom]

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

Pillars and Tyranny are very beautiful, they went for a hand drawn approach. In contrast, Dragon Age are not impressive graphically compared to say The Witcher 3. Why do you want to bring graphics up?

Because that is one of the things a PC does. It presents media in a graphical format in an unprecedented way. Games like Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity , in my perview do not utilize that capacity to the extent it could be utilized. The Witcher series is one of my favorites by the way.

Except Tyranny and Pillar are very pretty, comparable to hand drawn arts. It could be better, sure, but they look exceeding well in that approach for their budget. Divinity Original Sins 1 and 2 are also very beautiful in the same style.

[Buzzerker]

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Because that is one of the things a PC does. It presents media in a graphical format in an unprecedented way. Games like Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity , in my perview do not utilize that capacity to the extent it could be utilized. The Witcher series is one of my favorites by the way.

Except Tyranny and Pillar are very pretty, comparable to hand drawn arts. It could be better, sure, but they look exceeding well in that approach for their budget. Divinity Original Sins 1 and 2 are also very beautiful in the same style.

so , having said that let me ask you , which is a better game? Is it Tyranny or is it Divinity Original Sin 2? Which one would win in a contest where people voted on best rpg of the year? Then I want you to ask yourself why that is.

[Ray tracing is faster]

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Because that is one of the things a PC does. It presents media in a graphical format in an unprecedented way. Games like Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity , in my perview do not utilize that capacity to the extent it could be utilized. The Witcher series is one of my favorites by the way.

Art design > fidelity. You seem focused too much on the latter, although I think some people here are focused too much on the former. As I said earlier, I see zero reason for 2.5D graphics over 3D, so that's something you probably agree with. Personally I don't like Tyranny's art style at all.

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Mixing action in a turn based way with higher quality grapical content is not revolutionary to you? Actually I said 'evolutionary' and not revolutionary.

DA2's combat is literally a watered down sped up version of DA:O. It does nothing new, innovative, and showcases no evolution. Please explain how it does? Also, there is no turn-based aspect in Dragon Age. Only pause-and-play. The most advanced fantasy RPG combat is showcased by Divinity: Original Sin (turn-based) and both Neverwinter Nights games (also pause-and-play with a minor turn-based aspect), for different reasons which I can actually explain if you wish.

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

so , having said that let me ask you , which is a better game? Is it Tyranny or is it Divinity Original Sin 2? Which one would win in a contest where people voted on best rpg of the year?

As if graphics determine best RPG of the year lol. Tyranny has a LOT more role-playing than Divinity: Original Sin by the way, and 2 is in early access stage and not complete so again too early to judge, but premature and uninformed judgement is something you just can't stop doing.

[Seswatha]

Action combat camera is terrible for a party based RPG that is supposed to include tactics. Not that DA series has any ever since it adopted it. It works fine for a single character ARPG like Witcher series.

[Big Boom Boom]

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Big Boom Boom님이 먼저 게시:

It's not revolutionary, it's a very old ageing approach. Even among MMO genre action combat free targeting is the new norm. One where you don't auto attack for example. There's a reason why SWTOR wasn't the WoW killer EA was looking for and went F2P very fast.

Mixing action in a turn based way with higher quality grapical content is not revolutionary to you? Actually I said 'evolutionary' and not revolutionary. MMORPG's are a different subject.

Except MMO has done that for years, so it's not even evolutionary. In fact you missed the boat some decades ago, because on top of that MMO offer persistent world with multiplayer interaction. It's not a different subject, DA is just an MMORPG without MMO. It's a devolution in fact.

[Buzzerker]

GND Jester님이 먼저 게시:

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Because that is one of the things a PC does. It presents media in a graphical format in an unprecedented way. Games like Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity , in my perview do not utilize that capacity to the extent it could be utilized. The Witcher series is one of my favorites by the way.

Art design > fidelity. You seem focused too much on the latter, although I think some people here are focused too much on the former. As I said earlier, I see zero reason for 2.5D graphics over 3D, so that's something you probably agree with. Personally I don't like Tyranny's art style at all.

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Mixing action in a turn based way with higher quality grapical content is not revolutionary to you? Actually I said 'evolutionary' and not revolutionary.

DA2's combat is literally a watered down sped up version of DA:O. It does nothing new, innovative, and showcases no evolution. Please explain how it does? Also, there is no turn-based aspect in Dragon Age. Only pause-and-play. The most advanced fantasy RPG combat is showcased by Divinity: Original Sin (turn-based) and both Neverwinter Nights games (also pause-and-play with a minor turn-based aspect), for different reasons which I can actually explain if you wish.

I think the fact you see no value in DA2 speaks volumes so we are at an impasse in this discussion you and me. I guess we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Ray tracing is faster]

maddemiurg님이 먼저 게시:

Action combat camera is terrible for a party based RPG that is supposed to include tactics. Not that DA series has any ever since it adopted it. It works fine for a single character ARPG like Witcher series.

It's great for exploration though, and I love how DA:O has both. DA:O is a mildly tactical game I'd say, less so than Tyranny and others though.

More options = best. 3D graphics should be standard, since like I said 2.5D = imitation 3D only used in the 1990s when 3D graphics weren't good enough. Highly customizable camera like the Neverwinter Nights games but better fluidity would satisfy everyone. I want third person exploration in games like this, but a somewhat isometric camera for combat.

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

I think the fact you see no value in DA2 speaks volumes so we are at an impasse in this discussion you and me. I guess we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

How so? I explain my points, why don't you? Tell me of this value in DA2's combat, especially over DA:O.

[Buzzerker]

GND Jester님이 먼저 게시:

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Because that is one of the things a PC does. It presents media in a graphical format in an unprecedented way. Games like Tyranny and Pillars of Eternity , in my perview do not utilize that capacity to the extent it could be utilized. The Witcher series is one of my favorites by the way.

Art design > fidelity. You seem focused too much on the latter, although I think some people here are focused too much on the former. As I said earlier, I see zero reason for 2.5D graphics over 3D, so that's something you probably agree with. Personally I don't like Tyranny's art style at all.

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

Mixing action in a turn based way with higher quality grapical content is not revolutionary to you? Actually I said 'evolutionary' and not revolutionary.

DA2's combat is literally a watered down sped up version of DA:O. It does nothing new, innovative, and showcases no evolution. Please explain how it does? Also, there is no turn-based aspect in Dragon Age. Only pause-and-play. The most advanced fantasy RPG combat is showcased by Divinity: Original Sin (turn-based) and both Neverwinter Nights games (also pause-and-play with a minor turn-based aspect), for different reasons which I can actually explain if you wish.

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

so , having said that let me ask you , which is a better game? Is it Tyranny or is it Divinity Original Sin 2? Which one would win in a contest where people voted on best rpg of the year?

As if graphics determine best RPG of the year lol. Tyranny has a LOT more role-playing than Divinity: Original Sin by the way, and 2 is in early access stage and not complete so again too early to judge, but premature and uninformed judgement is something you just can't stop doing.

My point is , and you have evaded the point , Divinity Original Sin 2 , a game that has improved immensely , even in early access on it's previous iteration is a better game IN EARLY ACCESS , than Tyranny is in it's finished form and we all know why. If you are honest about it.

[Ray tracing is faster]

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

My point is , and you have evaded the point , Divinity Original Sin 2 , a game that has improved immensely , even in early access on it's previous iteration is a better game IN EARLY ACCESS , than Tyranny is and we all know why.

I didn't evade your point, I said it's idiotic and makes no sense. You're saying Divinity: Original Sin 2 is a better game because of its graphics fidelity. We get it, to you the two most important things to a game are cutscenes and graphics fidelity. One of those things is totally optional and subjective, and the other is overrated.

The thing YOU'RE not getting, and it's the stupidest thing you've said by far, is your premature uninformed judgement of games. You are now claiming that an unreleased early access game is superior to a game you never played. You have absolutely nothing to base that absurd claim on.

Any art form is to be evaluated when fully experienced in its complete stage, and you've done neither for both games in question. Thus, like I initially said, your opinions are invalid and you are incapable of providing any valuable insight or evaluation for any form of art or any form of media due to your inability to comprehend this simple fact. You didn't play them, you don't know them.

[Big Boom Boom]

Because they are different and you know why. One is turn based one is real time. One is story heavy and one is combat heavy. Why do you want people to vote one?

Also for the records you have neither played Tyranny or D:OS 2. I have.

[Buzzerker]

GND Jester님이 먼저 게시:

Buzzerker님이 먼저 게시:

My point is , and you have evaded the point , Divinity Original Sin 2 , a game that has improved immensely , even in early access on it's previous iteration is a better game IN EARLY ACCESS , than Tyranny is and we all know why.

I didn't evade your point, I said it's idiotic and makes no sense. You're saying Divinity: Original Sin 2 is a better game because of its graphics fidelity. We get it, to you the two most important things to a game are cutscenes and graphics fidelity. One of those things is totally optional and subjective, and the other is overrated.

The thing YOU'RE not getting, and it's the stupidest thing you've said by far, is your premature uninformed judgement of games. You are now claiming that an unreleased early access game is superior to a game you never played. You have absolutely nothing to base that absurd game on.

Any art form is to be evaluated when fully experienced in its complete stage, and you've done neither for both games in question. Thus, like I initially said, your opinions are invalid and you are incapable of providing any valuable insight or evaluation for any form of art or any form of media due to your inability to comprehend this simple fact. You didn't play them, you don't know them.

AND YOU , think I'm stupid enough to buy a game I already know I do not like and why....guess again. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.....lol...an art form it ain't.