102 réponses à ce sujet

[heretica]

Lol what a way to make people visit your website.

[Khayness]

I wholeheartedly agree with the last paragraph.

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

I'm just relieved the combat will still be top-down style at least on the PC. As to not being able to pick my race or name . . . couldn't care less. As to dialogue wheel vs traditional dialogue -- well, there are advantages to each so I don't really care. I am just SO relieved the PC version will still be traditional combat.

[Gill Kaiser]

For those who think that the progression from ME to ME2 and now from DA:O to DA2 shows a trend of dropping RPG mechanics, keep in mind that the Lead Gameplay Designer for the Mass Effect series has stated that they're going to try to put more RPG-ness into ME3, now that they've locked down what they wanted from the combat system.

[soteria]

Why didn't you just place the whole article in your thread?

To give his website more traffic (more advertising revenue). Hosting a website costs money, and it if doesn't get traffic...

[Khayness]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

For those who think that the progression from ME to ME2 and now from DA:O to DA2 shows a trend of dropping RPG mechanics, keep in mind that the Lead Gameplay Designer for the Mass Effect series has stated that they're going to try to put more RPG-ness into ME3, now that they've locked down what they wanted from the combat system.

See?
In the Forums whining is literally power, as when enough people whine for something, it can become a reality.

[alickar]

the reason why u have to be human is because hawk was human when he fled lothering he didnt transform into a dwarf thts just wrong if he did

Modifié par alickar, 10 juillet 2010 - 04:11 .

[Lintanis]

Catt128 wrote...


Lol what a way to make people visit your website.

thought they spammed the DA:O forum enough, now they are doing it here 

[alickar]

alickar wrote...

the reason why u have to be human is because hawk was human when he fled lothering he didnnt transform into a dwarf thts just wrong if he did

[Ecael]

Khayness wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

For those who think that the progression from ME to ME2 and now from DA:O to DA2 shows a trend of dropping RPG mechanics, keep in mind that the Lead Gameplay Designer for the Mass Effect series has stated that they're going to try to put more RPG-ness into ME3, now that they've locked down what they wanted from the combat system.

See?
In the Forums whining is literally power, as when enough people whine for something, it can become a reality.

Two things:

1. Christina Norman said "Richer RPG elements" and not "Bringing Back RPG elements". This suggests that they're going to work within the confines of the current Mass Effect 2 system or that these RPG elements were still present in Mass Effect 2.

2. Christina Norman is a hardcore RPG player. She already has her own definition of an RPG.

If I demanded on the forums that there be a Mass Effect 3 released within the next 10 years, and it happens, that doesn't automatically mean that they gave into my demands - especially when they were already developing Mass Effect 3 before people even played Mass Effect 2.

[Dileos]

The only thing I don't like about DA:2 so far is that Hawke seems like the kind of mary sue character a 9 year old kid playing DnD would make.



PC combat,customization(minus race), and setting are all the same so I'm happy about that atleast.



undecided on the dialogue wheel though, didn't like how it was pulled of in ME:1-2 at some points.

[Khayness]

Ecael wrote...

Two things:

1. Christina Norman said "Richer RPG elements" and not "Bringing Back RPG elements". This suggests that they're going to work within the confines of the current Mass Effect 2 system or that these RPG elements were still present in Mass Effect 2.

2. Christina Norman is a hardcore RPG player. She already has her own definition of an RPG.

If I demanded on the forums that there be a Mass Effect 3 released within the next 10 years, and it happens, that doesn't automatically mean that they gave into my demands - especially when they were already developing Mass Effect 3 before people even played Mass Effect 2.

All this hate towards the whiners really made you grim. You have lost your mojo.

[Rubbish Hero]

To be honest, I would rather read direct input from Bioware themselves
than speculation from a fan, with really, not very much substance to the
article. Here's hoping in future interviews they do start clearing
things up.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 10 juillet 2010 - 04:17 .

[Paromlin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wizbane wrote...
So far I get a too strong "loose ends" effect from the various products: DA:O, DA:O AW ("expansion"? not by a mile), stand-alone DLCs, DA:O toolset, 2 books (want more, they were the good start...), patching progress (what is this?), shirts and papercutters (wtf'?), official wiki and social site (where's my vault?)..... a big mess. DA:2 just adds to it.

Spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate with a toolset without the limits of a licensed ruleset... where are thou?

SW has killed the budget, marketing guys are making the rest.

So much idiocy here I can't take it all on. For starters, Bioware never had anything to do with the Vault, patching is proceeding at a completely normal pace for Bioware, and different projects have, you know, different budgets. Unless Bio just isn't big enough to handle ME, DA, and TOR at the same time, which is unlikely with EA behind them.

I also don't understand why you called this idiocy (besides being mean for free). Those are all valid points. Bioware is milking their franchise(s) so much in all possible ways without addressing issues.

[Wyndham711]

My first thought after hearing what DA2 was going to be about, was that this is akin to a spinoff, not so much a sequel. The sweeping changes in the style of the game would be much easier to accept if this wasn't labeled as a true sequel.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 10 juillet 2010 - 04:23 .

[Ecael]

Khayness wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Two things:

1. Christina Norman said "Richer RPG elements" and not "Bringing Back RPG elements". This suggests that they're going to work within the confines of the current Mass Effect 2 system or that these RPG elements were still present in Mass Effect 2.

2. Christina Norman is a hardcore RPG player. She already has her own definition of an RPG.

If I demanded on the forums that there be a Mass Effect 3 released within the next 10 years, and it happens, that doesn't automatically mean that they gave into my demands - especially when they were already developing Mass Effect 3 before people even played Mass Effect 2.

All this hate towards the whiners really made you grim. You have lost your mojo.

Doesn't mean it's any less wrong.

:happy:

[Maverick827]

...but the fact that the true role playing element of choice has been removed is a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who played and enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins as an RPG.

You lose the three-button skin toggle at the start of the game that determines whether or not you are Bond, Oddjob, ...er; human, elf, or dwarf.  The only thing races added to Origins was plus or minus four stat points and plus or minus the ability for all dramatic scenes in the game to be ruined by not being able to look any important NPC in the eye.

If Dragon Age: Origins had done more with race, then all of you ship rats would have a point.  In a little MMO called Shadowbane, race affected much about your character.  It affected what base class you could make, what disciplines you could take (specializations), and  to what profession (advancd class) of more than twenty you could promote.  Your race also affected your stats by a great amount, causing character builds to fluctuate wildly.  In a game with a very Shadowbane-esque system, limiting the choice of race would be terrible.  But not in Origins.

I can even see why BioWare and EA went the way they did: the market for an action/adventure “RPG” that allows a player to live the story without being too involved in the main character’s details is much, much bigger than the market for traditional role play.

In three months, from November of 2009 to February of 2010, Dragon Age: Origins sold 3 million copies. http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1067807p1.html 

In two months, from the end of January to the end of March, Mass Effect 2, with an established player base, sold 1.6 million copies.  http://online.wsj.co...81063997848.html 

That must have been one hell of a third month for Mass Effect 2 sales.

If it wasn’t, D&D would have taken over for Football/Soccer as a televised sport and there would be more RPGs out there than sports titles.

I believe it was in Euclid's Elements where the famous “bull****ting” proof showed that an RPG made for the PC in 2009 was, in fact, not equal to an RPG made for the table top in 1974.

Teasing me with something as open and infinitely superior in its complexity as was Dragon Age: Origins, only to follow up with something that is simply NOT in the same style or genre, is completely and utterly unfair.

Very mature way to close out your entirely fair and in-depth three-paragraph review.  Infinitely superior?  Child.

Modifié par Maverick827, 10 juillet 2010 - 04:55 .

[MerinTB]

This article is, more or less, how I feel.

[Layn]

Maverick827 wrote...
You lose the three-button skin toggle at the start of the game that determines whether or not you are Bond, Oddjob, ...er; human, elf, or dwarf.  The only thing races added to Origins was plus or minus four stat points and plus or minus the ability for all dramatic scenes in the game to be ruined by not being able to look any important NPC in the eye.

If Dragon Age: Origins had done more with race, then all of you ship rats would have a point.  In a little MMO called Shadowbane, race affected much about your character.  It affected what base class you could make, what disciplines you could take (specializations), and  to what profession (advancd class) of more than twenty you could promote.  Your race also affected your stats by a great amount, causing character builds to fluctuate wildly.  In a game with a very Shadowbane-esque system, limiting the choice of race would be terrible.  But not in Origins.

but it DID do a lot with races. In a roleplaying sense. I think everyone that is calling us whiners have no idea about roleplaying, why we like it and what helps roleplaying

Modifié par Crrash, 10 juillet 2010 - 05:12 .

[Maverick827]

Crrash wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...
You lose the three-button skin toggle at the start of the game that determines whether or not you are Bond, Oddjob, ...er; human, elf, or dwarf.  The only thing races added to Origins was plus or minus four stat points and plus or minus the ability for all dramatic scenes in the game to be ruined by not being able to look any important NPC in the eye.

If Dragon Age: Origins had done more with race, then all of you ship rats would have a point.  In a little MMO called Shadowbane, race affected much about your character.  It affected what base class you could make, what disciplines you could take (specializations), and  to what profession (advancd class) of more than twenty you could promote.  Your race also affected your stats by a great amount, causing character builds to fluctuate wildly.  In a game with a very Shadowbane-esque system, limiting the choice of race would be terrible.  But not in Origins.

but it DID do a lot with races. In a roleplaying sense. I think everyone that is calling us whiners have no idea about roleplaying and why we would like it.

Don't make stupid assumptions.

[Dileos]

Maverick827 wrote...

Don't make stupid assumptions.

[In Exile]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

That's not entirely accurate. Right from the get-go, Bioware's made sure to tell us that this Hawke is the main character. Therefore, while character customization of Hawke may be diverse, this will still definitely be HAWKE'S story, not ours. I'd like to say that Bioware has in mind an arc for this character, and that most of our choices will be forced to follow this arc in a "third-person narrative format" very similar to the Mass Effect Series.

How was DA our story at all? DA was a "Grey Warden's" story, and despite some throw-away dialogue options, the game fought hard to force you to be a Grey Warden and care about their mission. DA:O wasn't so bad with the giving a damn about the Wardens, but DA:A is a story that is actually impossible for any character that does not want to serve the Wardens.

Seriously, DA:A makes character builds from DA:O impossible. How is that in any way ownership?

How was DA:O, at the landsmeet, preventing you from convincing the Banns/Arls to make a Human Noble king over all other possible heirs, "our" story?

DA:O just made every character a side player that happened to stop the blight and potentially died doing it; nothing else is under your control.

Shepard drives ME. If Hawke is a driving force in DA2, that's a major improvement.

[Talonfire]

Dileos wrote...

The only thing I don't like about DA:2 so far is that Hawke seems like the kind of mary sue character a 9 year old kid playing DnD would make.

Outside of the Neverwinter Nights OC PC, and the Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark PC I can't think of a single BioWare PC that isn't a Mary Sue. BioWare really likes to make the player feel special when immersing them in their game worlds, and as a result the player characters end up being Mary Sues. The KotOR PC of course being the worst offender of them all.

As for this article, I can certainly understand where the writer is coming from. I'm not fond of voiced protagonists myself, and it does feel like BioWare is stepping away from some of what made Dragon Age enjoyable. However if I were to venture a guess (and someone from BioWare correct me if I'm wrong) the decision for a pre-defined protagonist isn't necessarily because BioWare feels that the Mass Effect way of things is better. In the Dragon Age world the Warden is the player's avatar, so the player had a lot of choice in defining them, not limitless of course, but the freedom was actually greater than in previous BioWare offerings because you could pick different origin stories.

In Dragon Age 2 you are not the Warden, Hawke is an external character from him or her. Dragon Age 2 is someone else's story, not "your" character's, so you have much less freedom in defining who and what he or she is including what they sound like. It's much more like the confrontation with Connor's demon when you're not a mage, or simply choose to send another mage into the Fade, and perhaps Leliana's Song (I haven't played this DLC, so I don't know how the dialogue system works in that). You have some control over the direction the character takes, but since they're not truly your avatar in the game world like the Warden is your control is limited. In Origins you knew right away based on your dialogue tree choices what selection would fit the personality you had in mind, and most of the time an option was available for a good amount of personality types. In Dragon Age 2 you'll have some control, but what the character will say will be far less predictable and may go against the personality you have in mind due to the tone of the voice, and the writing which won't be visible until the character speaks.

Would I prefer a voiceless protagonist with a traditional Fallout-style dialogue tree system and the ability to choose my race? Yes, but I'd rather wait for BioWare to give their justification for this change (assuming they haven't already and I just missed it) before I jump onto the "THEY RUINED IT FOREVER" bandwagon. For all we know the Warden may return for Dragon Age 3, along with the traditional dialogue tree system.

Modifié par Talonfire, 10 juillet 2010 - 05:25 .

[Layn]

Maverick827 wrote...
Don't make stupid assumptions.

what do you expect me to think when all you mention is different about different races are a couple of stats?

i mean, seriously, isn't it clear that there are two groups of gamers here? the ones who want to roleplay and then the ones who want a cinematic experience? i don't think i'm assuming anything wrongly

[Maverick827]

Crrash wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...
Don't make stupid assumptions.

what do you expect me to think when all you mention is different about different races are a couple of stats?

i mean, seriously, isn't it clear that there are two groups of gamers here? the ones who want to roleplay and then the ones who want a cinematic experience? i don't think i'm assuming anything wrongly

Considering I enjoy both roleplaying as well as the "cinematic experience," then yes, you are assuming wrongly.

Would I love for there to have been six voice actors, one for each race/gender combination?  Sure.  Do I realize that such a thing would be impossible to ask of BioWare?  Yes.  Do I understand the minimal loss in free race selection in the face of a more polished game with only one race, also given that Origins was much more role-binding than most jaded players care to admit?  Sure.