559 réponses à ce sujet

[Sinferno]

aaniadyen wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

little to no is an understatement compared to many games ive played.
Compare it to DAO? why yes it was very little compared to that but guess what.
DAO you spend 30 hours chatting and very little fighting.
ive beaten DAO in 12 hours skipping the talking and while doing side quests.
After one playthrough you know the story.
I prefer awakenings over DAO for its convo.
Story is good once but many times its not that great.
I like games i can play a ton of times and still have fun.
Thats why i liked oblivion.
not much on tlak but you understood whats happenings and lots of fighting and combos you can make.
Sure i can play the game but you have failed to explain why it makes a difference.

It sounds like this just isn't the game for you, then. If you like to skip dialogue and everything, why play a game that's main focus is the dialogue? It sounds to me like you're not really the RPG type. Maybe Diablo, or Warcraft would suit you better.

I dunno, Warcraft for Arrtis might be a little too difficult for this guy to make friends. He would watch a Lich King hardmode video and claim hes done the fight and try to debate about it with others and fail really badly. Perhaps Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 2 would be right up his alley? Constant shooting and action, and no dialogue. I can see why you'd enjoy awakening more then Origins not because awakening has less dialogue and more action but probably because its easy as hell and takes very little to no brain power.

Modifié par Sinferno, 12 juin 2010 - 03:58 .

[Sidney]

Hollingdale wrote...

The only thing that makes the BG series harder than Dragon Age is the fact that there are a ton of ****ing spells that you have to know. Once you actually do that the games are just as easy as DA.

And that's basically the difference between hardcore and casual. Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design.

Truth be told BG is easier since there's no flanking worries in the game it makes the typical mob attack much, much easier and that covers most of the fights in the game. As you said, it is the badly designed AD&D magic system that means you have to learn the goofy order of dispelling spells but precious little past that matters and since those magical protections crop up so rarely the overall challenge level was a lot lower. Both games are really basically the same in terms of challenge and combat complexity for your party but I'd say that "average" foes in DAO do a better job of using their special powers than average foes do in BG - there's nothing like a normal guard smacking you with Scattershot in the BG world for example.

Really, no RPG's have much in the way of "tactical" depth as the word matters. The original fallouts are tactical  only in the sense that getting shot in the back by a super mutant is "tactical".  KoTOR can't even sniff the concept of tactical. Really the ME games are the most tactical RPGs in ages because movement, cover, fire discipline and small units tactics at least have some small value in the game. You look at combat in something as old as Jagged Alliance and the depth of that combat puts any RPG to shame.

[AlanC9]

Some of that "bad" design may be Bio's fault -- I'm not 100% certain where a lot of the mage battle spells come from, but they damn well aren't in my PHB.

"Bad" in quotes because the design seems to have functioned well enough on its own terms. It gives susceptible players a feeling of mastery even when what they're doing is brain-dead. It wouldn't work at all in DA since you have tactics, but when you have to do everything by hand there's an illusion that you're doing something challenging.

Edit: actually, I get the feeling that  you, Hollingdale, and I are pretty much in the same place here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 juin 2010 - 05:43 .

[KalDurenik]

Hollingdale wrote...

The only thing that makes the BG series harder than Dragon Age is the fact that there are a ton of ****ing spells that you have to know. Once you actually do that the games are just as easy as DA.

The reason why BG is "harder" then dragon age all boil down to the fact that in BG you have a choice. In DA the game will give you a hug and have you on a leash.

And lets not forget (yes i know its a single player game). But Dragon Age have no kind of balance and the AI is horrible (at best).

And that's basically the difference between hardcore and casual. Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design.

Maybe maybe not. There is more things on the list if you compare casual and hardcore but it kinda boil down to this sooner or later:
Casual = The game will hold your hand. Pat you on the head. Lend you a shoulder to cry on (if you die (lol)). Remove choices that would make the player require to think
Hardcore = The game will / might kick you while you are down. Laugh while you cry. Give you alot more choices on how to play. What to play. But the game wont say "aww its okey you made the wrong choice here have a cookie"

Sadly most games are going mainstream and easier for every passing game T.T

Modifié par KalDurenik, 12 juin 2010 - 07:36 .

[Sidney]

KalDurenik wrote...

The reason why BG is "harder" then dragon age all boil down to the fact that in BG you have a choice. In DA the game will give you a hug and have you on a leash.

What choices does BG2 have that makes it harder than DAO?

Yes, I read where there are spells and skills to make yourself better in BG2 but tell me what that means? I actually cracked open the old BG2 manual to see all the great skills I'd forgotten about and these are what DAO doesn't have that BG2 does - let me tell you there are a lot more things in DAO that BG doesn't have:

Detecting Secret Doors
Detecting Illusions
Identify Items/Lore
Protection from Evil
Racial Enemy
Weapon Specializations
Turn Undead

I'm not sure that is a sterling group of skills to make your stand on that you can make your character "better".

[Leon Evelake]

Hollingdale wrote...

The only thing that makes the BG series harder than Dragon Age is the fact that there are a ton of ****ing spells that you have to know. Once you actually do that the games are just as easy as DA.

And that's basically the difference between hardcore and casual. Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design.

Thank you Hollingdale, I can always count on you to say something baseless, judgmental, inflammatory, and asinine......Bravo.

[AlanC9]

Leon Evelake wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

The only thing that makes the BG series harder than Dragon Age is the fact that there are a ton of ****ing spells that you have to know. Once you actually do that the games are just as easy as DA.

And that's basically the difference between hardcore and casual. Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design.

Thank you Hollingdale, I can always count on you to say something baseless, judgmental, inflammatory, and asinine......Bravo.

Wow... "baseless, judgmental, and inflammatory" tossed out in a post that doesn't even try to say why Hollingdale's wrong. Hollingdale actually said something. You didn't. This is past pot-kettle-black, and maybe even past hypocrisy.

[Hollingdale]

Leon Evelake wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

The only thing that makes the BG series harder than Dragon Age is the fact that there are a ton of ****ing spells that you have to know. Once you actually do that the games are just as easy as DA.

And that's basically the difference between hardcore and casual. Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design.

Thank you Hollingdale, I can always count on you to say something baseless, judgmental, inflammatory, and asinine......Bravo.

Then I to shall be simple and say that you know youre on the good side when the bad people hate you. Btw judgemental, inflammatory and asinine belong to a family of relative concepts which in their own nature are quite subjective and as such cannot really be refuted on a logical basis unless agreed upon with extreme semantic precision. The word baseless on the other hand is actually subject to deductive logic, as it is quite easily and precisily understood in most contexts and I think you will find if you actually think about it for a second that you can actually not count on me to say something baseless because everything I say actually inevatably has a base.

It might not be the base that you like but I would argue that most people would actually disagree with you that a base can only be ''some things'' and only ''something'' when that ''something'' is part of those ''some things''. Ponder this for a while if you've understood what I've written so far.

Then consider that the actual bases for my post were my own playthroughs of the aforementioned games.
Now know that most people would consider such empirically aquired knownledge quite sufficient a base to make such a post in fact it's even pretty much what is expected normatively.

In short: You might not have liked my post but it was not baseless and unlike yours it also contained substance and added to the ongoing discussion (another normative requirement) which yours failed to do.

You ****ing fail man.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 12 juin 2010 - 09:54 .

[Arrtis]

Glad to see people care so much about me to give me advice on what to play.

To all you who are so nice i have my own tastes thank you.

I would like DA2 to be very similar to DAA.

Not being in full control of when you talk to your members is a very nice idea.

Sort of weird starting romances and having 30 min long chats right before the archdemon lol.

[KalDurenik]

Sidney wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

The reason why BG is "harder" then dragon age all boil down to the fact that in BG you have a choice. In DA the game will give you a hug and have you on a leash.

What choices does BG2 have that makes it harder than DAO?

Yes, I read where there are spells and skills to make yourself better in BG2 but tell me what that means? I actually cracked open the old BG2 manual to see all the great skills I'd forgotten about and these are what DAO doesn't have that BG2 does - let me tell you there are a lot more things in DAO that BG doesn't have:

Detecting Secret Doors
Detecting Illusions
Identify Items/Lore
Protection from Evil
Racial Enemy
Weapon Specializations
Turn Undead

I'm not sure that is a sterling group of skills to make your stand on that you can make your character "better".

The fact is that there is a choice on how to play what to play. More combinations. More points to press out. Dragon Age is like this "here you go *leads player on a leash*.

Oh well like i said they cant make Dragon Age 2 more casual without giving the player a I "IWIN" button (tbh mages are very close to the "IWIN" class.

[AlanC9]

KalDurenik wrote...

Sidney wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

The reason why BG is "harder" then dragon age all boil down to the fact that in BG you have a choice. In DA the game will give you a hug and have you on a leash.

What choices does BG2 have that makes it harder than DAO?

Yes, I read where there are spells and skills to make yourself better in BG2 but tell me what that means? I actually cracked open the old BG2 manual to see all the great skills I'd forgotten about and these are what DAO doesn't have that BG2 does - let me tell you there are a lot more things in DAO that BG doesn't have:

Detecting Secret Doors
Detecting Illusions
Identify Items/Lore
Protection from Evil
Racial Enemy
Weapon Specializations
Turn Undead

I'm not sure that is a sterling group of skills to make your stand on that you can make your character "better".

The fact is that there is a choice on how to play what to play. More combinations. More points to press out. Dragon Age is like this "here you go *leads player on a leash*.

That's silly. There are all kinds of ways to gimp yourself in both IE games and in DA. But the correct combinations are just as obvious in both games.

[soteria]

That's silly. There are all kinds of ways to gimp yourself in both IE games and in DA. But the correct combinations are just as obvious in both games.

I don't know, I think it's a little easier to *accidentally* gimp yourself in DA:O. DnD makes it pretty obvious where you should put your stats for most classes, while Dragon Age tries to pretend that all or most stats are valuable to everyone. Well, that was a stated design goal, but they failed--a shame, imo. A sorceror in DnD is probably the class with the most potential to gimp himself, but sorcerors have enough raw power that they can overcome a lot of shortcomings in spell selection. Plus, sorcerors could exchange spells occasionally IIRC, something DA mages can't do.

[AlanC9]

So I was understating how wrong KalDurenik is? Yeah, I guess so. Especially on your earlier plays when you don't know what the spell combos are so you can't optimize your spell picks.

[Leon Evelake]

Hollingdale wrote...

Leon Evelake wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

The only thing that makes the BG series harder than Dragon Age is the fact that there are a ton of ****ing spells that you have to know. Once you actually do that the games are just as easy as DA.

And that's basically the difference between hardcore and casual. Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design.

Thank you Hollingdale, I can always count on you to say something baseless, judgmental, inflammatory, and asinine......Bravo.

Then I to shall be simple and say that you know youre on the good side when the bad people hate you. Btw judgemental, inflammatory and asinine belong to a family of relative concepts which in their own nature are quite subjective and as such cannot really be refuted on a logical basis unless agreed upon with extreme semantic precision. The word baseless on the other hand is actually subject to deductive logic, as it is quite easily and precisily understood in most contexts and I think you will find if you actually think about it for a second that you can actually not count on me to say something baseless because everything I say actually inevatably has a base.

It might not be the base that you like but I would argue that most people would actually disagree with you that a base can only be ''some things'' and only ''something'' when that ''something'' is part of those ''some things''. Ponder this for a while if you've understood what I've written so far.

Then consider that the actual bases for my post were my own playthroughs of the aforementioned games.
Now know that most people would consider such empirically aquired knownledge quite sufficient a base to make such a post in fact it's even pretty much what is expected normatively.

In short: You might not have liked my post but it was not baseless and unlike yours it also contained substance and added to the ongoing discussion (another normative requirement) which yours failed to do.

You ****ing fail man.

Hehe.. So angry.

My post was short and dismissive like yours.  Go through these threads and look I make plenty of drawn out posts, and usually take the time to explain what I mean.  That one was a response to your "because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design" comment as you were yet again blatantly taking a jab at people who disagree with you.  I was referring to that part and that part alone.  You make comments like this all the time and I am so bad for responding in kind? Because I am sick of your dismissive attitude?  I can be a jerk when I am annoyed but at least I am aware of it.  That all said lets not be too aggressive about this I would rather not be the source of a flame war just because I was in a bad mood..

Modifié par Leon Evelake, 13 juin 2010 - 02:55 .

[AlanC9]

Again, the difference is that he actually said something, and you didn't. That's what makes your post worthless and his not.

[Leon Evelake]

AlanC9 wrote...

Again, the difference is that he actually said something, and you didn't. That's what makes your post worthless and his not.

Again you don't get why I said that.
"Now personally I prefer casual because hardcore is just a self righteous word for bad game design. "
is not really a point as much as an insult, he said other stuff which had a point.  But I was irritated by him just insulting the people here supporting the "hardcore game" idea.

My point was that that comment was " baseless, judgmental, inflammatory, and asinine" .  Was it on topic? Friendly? Or necessary? No.  But I was in a bad mood and sick of the several posters who come on these boards and talk down to the other people actually discussing things civilly, without assuming that everybody with a different opinion is either stupid or self righteous.  Granted I was not civil and as you said hypocritical but that's usually how it goes when people argue or insult each other.  I don't see why you are so interested in the matter in the first place.  I am hardly the first person on this thread to be rude.

[KalDurenik]

O.o How in the world can you ever fail making a good character in DAO?... ... ... ... Yeah *slows backs out of the topic*

[Sidney]

KalDurenik wrote...

The fact is that there is a choice on how to play what to play. More combinations. More points to press out. Dragon Age is like this "here you go *leads player on a leash*.

Oh well like i said they cant make Dragon Age 2 more casual without giving the player a I "IWIN" button (tbh mages are very close to the "IWIN" class.

There's no more "points to press out" in BG2. In BG2, for the love of god classes have minimums so that you really can't screw them up. You can make that mistake in DAO. Can you pick worthless skills in BG2? No, because there are no worthless skills. Can you pick bad spells in BG2, sure. Can you in DAO, yes. I think you are blowing smoke. I guarantee you by DW fighter was a lot less of  walking god (heck I didn't even pick momentum is a HUGE oversight for a DW) than my Fighter in BG and god help me my Monk.

Tell me specifically not in these silly generalities how BG2 doesn't lead you on a leash anymore or less than DAO does.

[AlanC9]

Leon Evelake wrote...

Again you don't get why I said that.

No, I got it. But responding to a bad line in an otherwise useful post with a completely useless post of your own doesn't strike me as a particularly effective response. Unless your point is that posts like thisare worthless... but in that case, my criticism of your post can only help you.

Dammit, Sidney,-- you beat me to it. Looks like he's bailing anyway, though.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juin 2010 - 03:39 .

[Drasill]

Its going to be a hack-n-slash isn't it?

[Leon Evelake]

AlanC9 wrote...

Leon Evelake wrote...

Again you don't get why I said that.

No, I got it. But responding to a bad line in an otherwise useful post with a completely useless post of your own doesn't strike me as a particularly effective response. Unless your point is that posts like thisare worthless... but in that case, my criticism of your post can only help you.

Dammit, Sidney,-- you beat me to it. Looks like he's bailing anyway, though.

I see.  As I said I was in a particularly foul mood when I posted that and have no real desire to draw this out any further.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Drasill wrote...

Its going to be a hack-n-slash isn't it?

Bioware would have to drift away from the party system to make an effective hack-n-slash game.   The difficulty in DA may be unbalanced but there is not precedent for this formula within the confines of the current framework.

[Sylixe]

relhart wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

Bfler wrote...

" If DA2 ends up being a hack 'n' slash action game with a dialogue system tacked on to it, I'm not buying it."

Isn't that what Awakening already is?

You could argue the same is true for Origins as well actually.
The difference being it isn't quite as noticable due to the game being much longer

Origins has the most superfluous and overly drawn out dialogue system of any game I've personally played, to the point of excess, you're entilted to your opinion, but I don't really see how you could reasonably argue that, no.  Hell Lelianas camp dialogue alone took me longer to get through than the entire Dalish area.  Try a play through where you escape out of all the nessasary dialogue and skip all the unessasary ones, it's easily 1/4 of the game (unless you die and reload a lot I guess),  thats hardly tacked on by modern video game standards.  

Actually someone went to the trouble a while back and skipped ALL the dialogue as much as possible and finished the game in under 10 hours. 

[Leon Evelake]

Sylixe wrote...

relhart wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

Bfler wrote...

" If DA2 ends up being a hack 'n' slash action game with a dialogue system tacked on to it, I'm not buying it."

Isn't that what Awakening already is?

You could argue the same is true for Origins as well actually.
The difference being it isn't quite as noticable due to the game being much longer

Origins has the most superfluous and overly drawn out dialogue system of any game I've personally played, to the point of excess, you're entilted to your opinion, but I don't really see how you could reasonably argue that, no.  Hell Lelianas camp dialogue alone took me longer to get through than the entire Dalish area.  Try a play through where you escape out of all the nessasary dialogue and skip all the unessasary ones, it's easily 1/4 of the game (unless you die and reload a lot I guess),  thats hardly tacked on by modern video game standards.  

Actually someone went to the trouble a while back and skipped ALL the dialogue as much as possible and finished the game in under 10 hours. 

That seems a little short considering side quests and even the main stuff.  I would of thought around 17-25 hours.
Was it just the bare minimum to finish they story like skipping the defense of redcliff and  taking all the short options like making deals with demons instead of fighting them?  there is a lot of places were you can skip chunks of gameplay.

[Sylixe]

As i recall he basically did the bare minimum that you could to progress the story and didn't do anything special or any side quests. If you do some search back to about a month after release i think you can find the thread about it.