51 réponses à ce sujet

[Anathemic]

Abriael_CG wrote...

The dialogue wheel system is something i resent quite a lot.. I will resent it even more if it becomes like Mass effect: "press up for good, press down for bad, center for stupid"
It removes any need to think and in the end turns the game in an on-rails experience.

The same resentment comes for the inability to chose the character's race.

in the end I feel that Bioware is turning Dragon Age 2 into a Mass Effect 2 clone, just set in a fantasy world.

It seems an extremely silly choice, given that Dragon Age was a quite unique experience in nowadays' market. Why making it more similar to another game, and as such less unique?

To the ones that continue to spam "don't fear change": "change" isn't the matter. The loss of uniqueness that seems to be going towards a dumbed down experience is the problem.

The main advertising point of Dragon Age was that it was supposed to be the "heir" to the Baldur's Gate series. That's why many of us are here.
We aren't here to see the heir of Mass Effect 2.

Agreed

[RunCDFirst]

Anathemic wrote...
It seems Hawke is going to be a defined character, the VO, the restriction to human, the dialogue wheel system..

I should say, Hawke may not be a defined character. The VO and dialogue wheel certainly suggest that he could, but it is possible these elements could be applied to an undefined character. The Nameless one was restricted to human, had a voice over (though limited) and still managed to be pretty malleable. 
Currently, we have no proof one way or the other so I'm going to be hopefully optimistic until shown otherwise.
I still hate the wheel.

[Abriael_CG]

schalafi wrote...
That might take care of just what tone to take in your answers on the wheel. At least you have choices on what attitude you can take in your response.

Which seems a quite unnecessary crutch. "click here if you wanna be aggressive", "click here if you wanna be sarcastic" and so forth. Not as terribly crutchy as the paragon/renegade system in ME2, but still leading people by hand quite a lot.

[Arttis]

It will be similar to fable.

Its predefined to a point but you really make it your own.

[schalafi]

Abriael_CG wrote...

schalafi wrote...
That might take care of just what tone to take in your answers on the wheel. At least you have choices on what attitude you can take in your response.

Which seems a quite unnecessary crutch. "click here if you wanna be aggressive", "click here if you wanna be sarcastic" and so forth. Not as terribly crutchy as the paragon/renegade system in ME2, but still leading people by hand quite a lot.

In DA/Awakening, you had (persuade) and (aggressive) choices to click on, and it didn't seem too disruptive to me.

[Abriael_CG]

RunCDFirst wrote...
I should say, Hawke may not be a defined character. The VO and dialogue wheel certainly suggest that he could, but it is possible these elements could be applied to an undefined character. The Nameless one was restricted to human, had a voice over (though limited) and still managed to be pretty malleable. 
Currently, we have no proof one way or the other so I'm going to be hopefully optimistic until shown otherwise.
I still hate the wheel.

Many bring Planescape: torment as the example of "the supreme" RPG, but there are quite a lot of people that really couldn't enjoy it (besides the fact that they used the most completely wacko D&D setting, thank goodness Planescape is past history) because yhey couldn't form an emotional link with the Nameless one (that is, on top of being predertermined, a pretty dull character).
On the other hand it's much easier for those people to form an emotional link with characters they created.

In a gaming market in which almost every single game feeds us predetermined characters, losing the option to completely determine one's character in a franchise that had it is a big loss, and IMHO, a very, very detrimental choice.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 juillet 2010 - 12:15 .

[RunCDFirst]

Abriael_CG wrote...
Many bring Planescape: torment as the example of "the supreme" RPG, but there are quite a lot of people that really couldn't enjoy it (besides the fact that they used the most completely wacko D&D setting, thank goodness Planescape is past history) because yhey couldn't form an emotional link with the Nameless one (that is, on top of being predertermined, a pretty dull character).
On the other hand it's much easier for those people to form an emotional link with characters they created.

In a gaming market in which almost every single game feeds us predetermined characters, losing the option to completely determine one's character in a franchise that had it is a big loss, and IMHO, a very, very detrimental choice.

Whether you're a fan or not of Torment, it's just an example that a predefined character can be shaped by the player even with VO. Whether BioWare has done this or not, we won't know until release.

[Abriael_CG]

RunCDFirst wrote...
Whether you're a fan or not of Torment, it's just an example that a predefined character can be shaped by the player even with VO. Whether BioWare has done this or not, we won't know until release.

"shape" is a big word. There were many aspects of the nameless one that the player couldn't shape at all, and that was exactly the problem.

[Anathemic]

RunCDFirst wrote...

Abriael_CG wrote...
Many bring Planescape: torment as the example of "the supreme" RPG, but there are quite a lot of people that really couldn't enjoy it (besides the fact that they used the most completely wacko D&D setting, thank goodness Planescape is past history) because yhey couldn't form an emotional link with the Nameless one (that is, on top of being predertermined, a pretty dull character).
On the other hand it's much easier for those people to form an emotional link with characters they created.

In a gaming market in which almost every single game feeds us predetermined characters, losing the option to completely determine one's character in a franchise that had it is a big loss, and IMHO, a very, very detrimental choice.

Whether you're a fan or not of Torment, it's just an example that a predefined character can be shaped by the player even with VO. Whether BioWare has done this or not, we won't know until release.

But it still doesn't deny that us who don't want VO are getting basically slapped insulted by this. All other BioWare games have VO why couldn't the DA franchise be the unique one for us fans who oppose VO to like?

[AlanC9]

Abriael_CG wrote...
Many bring Planescape: torment as the example of "the supreme" RPG, but there are quite a lot of people that really couldn't enjoy it (besides the fact that they used the most completely wacko D&D setting, thank goodness Planescape is past history) because yhey couldn't form an emotional link with the Nameless one (that is, on top of being predertermined, a pretty dull character).

Indeed. PS:T has a lot of passionate fans, but also a lot of folks who admire it without liking it all that much.

[In Exile]

Anathemic wrote...

But it still doesn't deny that us who don't want VO are getting basically slapped insulted by this. All other BioWare games have VO why couldn't the DA franchise be the unique one for us fans who oppose VO to like?

But why does that deny us who want VO the game that we want? All other classic Bioware games do not have VO; why does the DA franchise have to be unique for the safe of fans who oppose VO?

Look - I understand your complaints. I understand the frustration of having to play a game that using a system that you don't enjoy as much and find restrictive. Welcome to my experience of DA:O. But this issue of entitlement is not very much appreciated.

I understand that for you, you can't relate to a VO character. I find it almost impossible to relate to a non-VO, non-actioned puppet in a 3D world of dynamic NPCs. If the game was 2D and there was no VO for NPCs, I'd agree that no VO for the PC is better. But what games today are doing is forcing the player into a two-bit side everyman role, and that's not a game everyone enjoys.

Bioware made a game you really like; now they're making a game you like a lot less.

I know it sucks; I feel this way whenver I see these new "immersive" control schemes for games, like the Nintendo Wii, which could very well be the death of video-games for me, because I hate these "go through actions as if it was real life" controls. But I don't appreciate the almost constant, if you were a TRUE RPG fan, you'd be against VO comments. Some of us think that VO makes a much better RPG.

[Anathemic]

In Exile wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

But it still doesn't deny that us who don't want VO are getting basically slapped insulted by this. All other BioWare games have VO why couldn't the DA franchise be the unique one for us fans who oppose VO to like?

But why does that deny us who want VO the game that we want? All other classic Bioware games do not have VO; why does the DA franchise have to be unique for the safe of fans who oppose VO?

Look - I understand your complaints. I understand the frustration of having to play a game that using a system that you don't enjoy as much and find restrictive. Welcome to my experience of DA:O. But this issue of entitlement is not very much appreciated.

I understand that for you, you can't relate to a VO character. I find it almost impossible to relate to a non-VO, non-actioned puppet in a 3D world of dynamic NPCs. If the game was 2D and there was no VO for NPCs, I'd agree that no VO for the PC is better. But what games today are doing is forcing the player into a two-bit side everyman role, and that's not a game everyone enjoys.

Bioware made a game you really like; now they're making a game you like a lot less.

I know it sucks; I feel this way whenver I see these new "immersive" control schemes for games, like the Nintendo Wii, which could very well be the death of video-games for me, because I hate these "go through actions as if it was real life" controls. But I don't appreciate the almost constant, if you were a TRUE RPG fan, you'd be against VO comments. Some of us think that VO makes a much better RPG.

And some of us thinks VO dumbs down the RPG experience, we are all entitled to out opinions.
But we all loved DA:O for basically everything, no VO, list dialogue system, origin stories, storyline, etc. It is an insult that this stand alone franchise is now appealing more mainstream with simaler features of those of Mass Effect.
I was hyped up for DA:O the moment it was advertised a "return to the roots game" a "homage to Baldur's Gate", DA2, though it is not restrained to that, it seems like it's straying away from that which made DA:O so great, it seems DA:O was a one-time thing and now it's "out with the old in with the new".

[Merci357]

In Exile wrote...
I know it sucks; I feel this way whenver I see these new "immersive" control schemes for games, like the Nintendo Wii, which could very well be the death of video-games for me, because I hate these "go through actions as if it was real life" controls. But I don't appreciate the almost constant, if you were a TRUE RPG fan, you'd be against VO comments. Some of us think that VO makes a much better RPG.

Playing CRPGs since almost 25 years, well, I guess I'm no true fan, then, since I happen to prefer full VO in this day and age of "cinematic" gaming, but that doesn't make or break the game for me, it's so much more involved. Take The Witcher, for example - that had full VO, and I tried two times to play that game, to get into the character. But, I've never finished it, I just can't stand that game - and VO wasn't the reason why.
Voice over is just one feature of many, it's neither required, nor a saving grace, but can be the icing on the cake.

[Hel]

Abriael_CG wrote...

The main advertising point of Dragon Age Origins was that it was supposed to be the "heir" to the Baldur's Gate series.

I fixed that for you, this is Dragon Age 2, not Origins.

While I enjoyed playing Origins, I definitely didn't play it because it was the spiritual successor (marketing much?) to the Baldur's Gate series. If I wanted to play that series, I would install its games, thank you very much.


As I've indicated in my past comments elsewhere, before the announcement was ever made, I'm definitely in favour of these new changes. Silent protagonists were nice in the older games, where only the NPC's had a few lines of voice overs. But in new games, where every other character's conversations are voiced, having a silent protagonist stands out like a sore thumb. I honestly don't want to play through an entire game again with a character who is more Tranquil than the poor saps he meets in the Circle of Magi.

Then in defense of having to play a fixed protagonist, I'm sure most have heard of a game called Planescape: Torment? Well in Torment you played a fixed character as well, in the Infinite Engine no less, and guess what? Up to today that game is still being praised as one of the greatest roleplaying games of the past decade. I could draw Geralt from The Witcher in this discussion as well, but in the end I'll reach the same conclusion, hence I'll refrain from doing so. Roleplaying games aren't always about the player getting to choose who or what the protagonist is, sometimes they're about being able to experience and shape a story from another person's perspective. Sure, in Origins you could do this and that, but (again) this isn't Origins.

And last but not least, the dialog wheel. I never had a problem with it in Mass Effect, so I don't understand the uproar about its addition. Barring the fact that it usesa smaller textual description, its functionality remains exactly the same as the system we were offered in Origins.


In short, I like my protagonists to be predetermined in story driven singleplayer games. Why? Because it allows me to immerse myself more fully in the storyline, much like when I'm reading a book. It's something I simply can't do with "blank slate" characters, they always feel out of place for some reason or the other.

Modifié par Helekanalaith, 11 juillet 2010 - 12:58 .

[In Exile]

Anathemic wrote...

And some of us thinks VO dumbs down the RPG experience, we are all entitled to out opinions.

And if you're going to choose language as offensive as that, then I hope you're prepared for a very vocal and very explosive debate. Because if there's one thing people don't appreciate, it's being told they're stupid for what they like.

I could say, for example, that I think the "not interpreting dialogue literally and filling in the blanks in your background" approach to role-playing is at best fan-fiction and at worst effectively delusional but that's offensive, so I stay away. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

But we all loved DA:O for basically everything, no VO, list dialogue system, origin stories, storyline, etc. It is an insult that this stand alone franchise is now appealing more mainstream with simaler features of those of Mass Effect.

And shocking though it may be, they are not taking DA:O off the market, breaking into homes to destroy copies, and forcing everyone to buy a re-invented version of the game.

I mean, it's not as if DA:O wasn't massively succesful commercially. It sold 3 million units. If Bioware is moving away from designing a game like this, it is very likely because they want to design a different game, and not because they are alergic to money. If there's anything DA:O proved, it's that there is a market for commercially sucessful games of this mold.

I was hyped up for DA:O the moment it was advertised a "return to the roots game" a "homage to Baldur's Gate", DA2, though it is not restrained to that, it seems like it's straying away from that which made DA:O so great, it seems DA:O was a one-time thing and now it's "out with the old in with the new".

How does that justify self-righteous indignation? 

[Anathemic]

In Exile wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

And some of us thinks VO dumbs down the RPG experience, we are all entitled to out opinions.

And if you're going to choose language as offensive as that, then I hope you're prepared for a very vocal and very explosive debate. Because if there's one thing people don't appreciate, it's being told they're stupid for what they like.

I could say, for example, that I think the "not interpreting dialogue literally and filling in the blanks in your background" approach to role-playing is at best fan-fiction and at worst effectively delusional but that's offensive, so I stay away. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.

But we all loved DA:O for basically everything, no VO, list dialogue system, origin stories, storyline, etc. It is an insult that this stand alone franchise is now appealing more mainstream with simaler features of those of Mass Effect.

And shocking though it may be, they are not taking DA:O off the market, breaking into homes to destroy copies, and forcing everyone to buy a re-invented version of the game.

I mean, it's not as if DA:O wasn't massively succesful commercially. It sold 3 million units. If Bioware is moving away from designing a game like this, it is very likely because they want to design a different game, and not because they are alergic to money. If there's anything DA:O proved, it's that there is a market for commercially sucessful games of this mold.

I was hyped up for DA:O the moment it was advertised a "return to the roots game" a "homage to Baldur's Gate", DA2, though it is not restrained to that, it seems like it's straying away from that which made DA:O so great, it seems DA:O was a one-time thing and now it's "out with the old in with the new".

How does that justify self-righteous indignation? 

1) Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term 'dumbed' down should of went with over-simplified for some of us.

2) But if DA:O was so successful then why change it drastically? DA2 will be very well recieved if this was a 'standard' sequel with a more in-depth plot, continuation of DA:O story (Warden or not doesn't matter), and a few tweaks to combat and user interface.
Instead we get DA2 which seems like DA:O revamped changing basically the major features whcih made DA:O, DA:O.

3) It was my opinion, I used my opinion to state on what I feel for that's what an opinion is about, but I can assure you that other people on here agree with my self-stated opinion and might even have the same one.

[Merci357]

Anathemic wrote...
2) But if DA:O was so successful then why change it drastically? DA2 will be very well recieved if this was a 'standard' sequel with a more in-depth plot, continuation of DA:O story (Warden or not doesn't matter), and a few tweaks to combat and user interface.
Instead we get DA2 which seems like DA:O revamped changing basically the major features whcih made DA:O, DA:O.

The story of Thedas (not of the Warden) does continue, you can even import your DA:O save game.

[Anathemic]

Merci357 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
2) But if DA:O was so successful then why change it drastically? DA2 will be very well recieved if this was a 'standard' sequel with a more in-depth plot, continuation of DA:O story (Warden or not doesn't matter), and a few tweaks to combat and user interface.
Instead we get DA2 which seems like DA:O revamped changing basically the major features whcih made DA:O, DA:O.

The story of Thedas (not of the Warden) does continue, you can even import your DA:O save game.

I know this, but if the Warden is being cut out ,what happens to him/her?
And in addition, I cannot accept the fact that human refugee named hawke will outdo my Warden's accomplisments/story

[In Exile]

Anathemic wrote...
1) Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term 'dumbed' down should of went with over-simplified for some of us.

I apologize too. I was too forcefull with what I said. It just really bothers me, because I feel like a minority in the cRPG community based on my taste.

2) But if DA:O was so successful then why change it drastically? DA2 will be very well recieved if this was a 'standard' sequel with a more in-depth plot, continuation of DA:O story (Warden or not doesn't matter), and a few tweaks to combat and user interface.
Instead we get DA2 which seems like DA:O revamped changing basically the major features whcih made DA:O, DA:O.

Honestly? I think DA2 was conceived and work started on it while DA:O was still being produced. They did not except it to be as big of a commercial success as it was - hence why it became a multi-platform release and so on.

The thing is, it was commercially succesful. But it makes no sense to scrap the work gone into DA2, which had been planned off the known success, ME.

I think Bioware will have a DA3 which goes back to origins, if DA2 does not significantly outperform or even underperforms DA:O.

3) It was my opinion, I used my opinion to state on what I feel for that's what an opinion is about, but I can assure you that other people on here agree with my self-stated opinion and might even have the same one.

I get that. I just can`t get the sense of entitlement. The `how dare Bioware betray me as they did,` sort of vide.

[In Exile]

Anathemic wrote...
I know this, but if the Warden is being cut out ,what happens to him/her?
And in addition, I cannot accept the fact that human refugee named hawke will outdo my Warden's accomplisments/story

Honestly, part of that is what happens with VO versus non-VO. The non-VO has to be more low key for how a non-VO is RPed.

That aside, Grey Warden ended the Blight and killed an Archedemon (probably). Short of Hawke ending the blight forever, I don`t quite see how he`s topping an achievement that only five people in existence ever achieved. Hell, the Grey Warden ended the blight in months as opposed to the decades it usually takes - that makes the Gray Warden a greater hero than probably ever existed in the Warden`s since their founding.

[Anathemic]

In Exile wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
1) Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term 'dumbed' down should of went with over-simplified for some of us.

I apologize too. I was too forcefull with what I said. It just really bothers me, because I feel like a minority in the cRPG community based on my taste.

2) But if DA:O was so successful then why change it drastically? DA2 will be very well recieved if this was a 'standard' sequel with a more in-depth plot, continuation of DA:O story (Warden or not doesn't matter), and a few tweaks to combat and user interface.
Instead we get DA2 which seems like DA:O revamped changing basically the major features whcih made DA:O, DA:O.

Honestly? I think DA2 was conceived and work started on it while DA:O was still being produced. They did not except it to be as big of a commercial success as it was - hence why it became a multi-platform release and so on.

The thing is, it was commercially succesful. But it makes no sense to scrap the work gone into DA2, which had been planned off the known success, ME.

I think Bioware will have a DA3 which goes back to origins, if DA2 does not significantly outperform or even underperforms DA:O.

3) It was my opinion, I used my opinion to state on what I feel for that's what an opinion is about, but I can assure you that other people on here agree with my self-stated opinion and might even have the same one.

I get that. I just can`t get the sense of entitlement. The `how dare Bioware betray me as they did,` sort of vide.

1) It seems the people, me included, who prefer no-VO is the minority in thsi debate, for it's already confirmed VO will bein DA2 <_< all we can do is hope BioWare changes their minds.

2) Maybe your right here, but wouldn't it be smoother to transition to DA2 then DA3 with jsut being the Warden or another character with DA:O feautures (keep no-VO, combat system same, etc) with just little tweaks? I think this was it will be very well received rather than these debates and arguemtns, but it's just my opinion.

3) Maybe you can't, which I understand, but players like me wanted, expected DA to be it's own franchise away from ME. ME and DA:O have two different fanbases, why merge them together when they are perfectly fine seperate? Expect the thunder before the storm.

In Exile wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
I know this, but if the Warden is being cut out ,what happens to him/her?
And in addition, I cannot accept the fact that human refugee named hawke will outdo my Warden's accomplisments/story

Honestly, part of that is what happens with VO versus non-VO. The non-VO has to be more low key for how a non-VO is RPed.

That
aside, Grey Warden ended the Blight and killed an Archedemon
(probably). Short of Hawke ending the blight forever, I don`t quite see
how he`s topping an achievement that only five people in existence ever
achieved. Hell, the Grey Warden ended the blight in months as opposed
to the decades it usually takes - that makes the Gray Warden a greater
hero than probably ever existed in the Warden`s since their founding.

4) We say that Hawke will outdo the Warden since BioWare is focusing their attention on Hawke, and if Hawke doesn't outdo the Warden what was the point of making DA2 centered on Hawke rather than the Warden?

[MFCell]

Felfenix wrote...
 to know what will lead to more options or back to previous options, and what will progress the conversation

This is why, for role-playing reasons, you CAN NOT HAVE a dialogue wheel.

You could, effectively, remove the dialogue and complaete the entire game without a word, because you would always know how to press and what makes people mad or happy, etc.

It's a completely broken dialogue system.

[Dennis Carpenter]

Ok heres my two cents.................



1 I am still waiting for closure to all the events and character interactions in DA:O

1a. that being said Bioware promised us a whole world of adventure covering all of thedas over time and DA2 is just another small part of that world.

1b. I may or may not like it in comparison to DA:O but i will play it cause it will genrally be a quality game in and of itself or at least I expect as much.



2. i also do not like VO after running through Lelianas DLC and watching her say thing totally different then what was printed on screen as my choice it made me feel like I was just there to watch the game play out rather then make any substantive choices that mattered.

2a.Bioware has already added VO so the aforementioned comment becomes a moot point.



3.I do enjoy making my own character rather then playing someone elses creation. So in DA2 I can be either male or female, certainly not building any enthusiasm there. We do have 3 class choices hopefully those were improved.

3a. Either for cost or additions being put into the game we have not seen before somethings might have had to be limited. If that is the case then we can expect either more in depth characterization , interaction , storyline, or a larger portion of the world to explore. Any of those is fine with me regardless of how I feel about one character.



So thats pretty much it, I am not overly excited as I was with DA:O and dont know if I will ;play it more then once since I can only be the same character over and over just with different abilities but I reserve my final judgement until after playing it.

[tbsking]

In general, it just seems such a drastic change from DAO. A game that touted choices and consequences receiving a sequel that severely limits such choices, however superficially, is quite suspect. I think this has been asked before but: What was BioWare's motivation in this?

[In Exile]

Anathemic wrote...

1) It seems the people, me included, who prefer no-VO is the minority in thsi debate, for it's already confirmed VO will bein DA2 <_< all we can do is hope BioWare changes their minds.

Bioware happens to prefer the dialogue wheel, I think. It's why they added it to their Star Wars MMORPG.

That being said, there is a very vocal group of people that identify as "traditional" RPG fans that are a huge forum-going (though not neccesarily market segment-wise) population that really, really dislike and want to marginalize people that do like ME style games.

The action guys think you're a loser nerd for liking ME with all the talking, and the RPG crowd thinks you're a twitch jock that can't handle a game that isn't dumbed down. If there are people out there that think like I do, I haven't seen it yet. Though this forum has a lot more than I've ever seen, so maybe there's hope for me.

2) Maybe your right here, but wouldn't it be smoother to transition to DA2 then DA3 with jsut being the Warden or another character with DA:O feautures (keep no-VO, combat system same, etc) with just little tweaks? I think this was it will be very well received rather than these debates and arguemtns, but it's just my opinion.

The issue is, if they've already started designing the game, then there have been resources invested that would be lost 100% if the game is scrapped. If they're recycling the engine, who knows how much of the game would already be ready?

That's why I think it DA2 is as it is.

That being said, I think it's success depends completely on the relative # of the fanbase that is hardcore traditional RPG. If they made up a significant portion of DA2 sales, and they don't rebuy, that may affect the bottom line, since there isn't a FPS hook.

3) Maybe you can't, which I understand, but players like me wanted, expected DA to be it's own franchise away from ME. ME and DA:O have two different fanbases, why merge them together when they are perfectly fine seperate? Expect the thunder before the storm.

When you think one way is objectively better...

I do get the dissapointment, though.

Anathemic wrote...

4) We say that Hawke will outdo the Warden since BioWare is focusing their attention on Hawke, and if Hawke doesn't outdo the Warden what was the point of making DA2 centered on Hawke rather than the Warden?

The blurb about Hawke says it's all a character piece about how Hawke becomes the Hero of Kirkwall. Podunk down in the Free Marches isn't saving the world. In fact, they're explicit that Hawke doesn't save the world or do anything like that.