152 réponses à ce sujet

[Khayness]

Limitation ensures change. All the good things in DA:O are now labeled as limitations and being removed to ensure a more cinematic experience. That's life folks.

[Riona45]

angelgaidin wrote...

Video games are an audio/visual medium.  The only imagination required in audio/visual media is the willing suspension of disbelief.  It's in the very nature of the medium to limit imagination to this extent.  The only reason it has ever been otherwise was due to technological limitations.  If a developer wished you to use your imagination that much, they would make a text-only game.  If a gamer wants to imagine the majority of his game and be immersed to a level that this medium no longer accomodates, they should head to their local hobby shop and play some D&D or some other tabletop game.  The rest of us have acknowledged the limitation of the medium and will enjoy the wonderful games that BioWare develops.

Also, IIRC the main reason why the PC wasn't voice-acted in DA:O was because it would have been impractical with the six different origins, not because the developers felt a silent PC was somehow more "intellectual" than a voiced one.

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

druid126 wrote...

How it isn't rigid:

One: a story that spans ten years where *every* decisions influence the entire kingdom
Two: A voiced over character that shows emotion
Three: The same list system... except now it's a circle and not a square? Oh my... how rigid.

Using the same points I can argue that DA 2 gives better freedom for your character  But it certainly doesn't invalidate my earlier question, which you seems to have ignored in order to harsh on DA 2.

1) Entire kingdom? Since when? So far Kirkwall is in a the Free Marches and the Free Marches are collection of city-states, not a Kingdom. Sound like DA:O has the upper hand in this where you actually save the kingdom/country from a civil-war.

2)I rather role-play what a silent protagonist can say to an NPC rather than watch in 'cinematic experience' two people talking.

3) Now you're just being ignorant, the wheel was basically 'Bad' 'Good' 'Neutral' at msot with an 'Investigate option on the left side whereas the lsit system in DA:O could be Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic, all these things.

Actually:


1) My bad, way to nit-pick words. But it *is* a collection of city states. But who's to say you can't, through your choices, unify it. In fact, from most dev posts it sounds like you will be able to.

2) You still choose what you want to say but it flows naturally.

3) I'm afraid it's you who's being ignorant. The wheel in Mass Effect is similar but not the same as the one being used in DA 2. If you've actually read the few acknowledgements towards this new system you'd realise that they've implemented "Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic..." and yes "...all these things." Even that wheel in ME was more than just Good, neutral, bad. However, it's been oversimplified by those who wish to bash new things and hate when the world changes without them.

1) Refugee from Lothering unifies city-states in comparison to Warden unifies country in ending a civil war and defeating the Blight, pretty dull really..

2) Flows naturally? i can choose what Hawke says/does but I am not Hawke, i'm merely guiding/steering Hawke and being the omnipotent figure watching over all making sure everything goes the right way.

3) Okay sure, in the middle is lights up whether its Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic, but can you fit all of that in just one dialogue option with VO? No you can't. In DA:O when I said "No" i can rolepaly it to be sarcastic, mean, straight-foward, positive, nice, objective, all tehse things, at best when i say "No" in this new dialogue system in DA2 it's going to be "No" highlighted as negative.

[IronVanguard]

druid126 wrote...
Would you not say that those very first video games had their sequels stray from their roots? The story universes they took place in had the same concepts and feelings but the actual mechanics changed. It shouldn't take 20 years for a game to improve. It should happen when they realise what they didn't like doing in the first one.

Race had very little bearing on the game short of a few dialogue nods and a 30 minute origin story. It limits choice in no way.

See, here's the problem. The angry fanbase here are the ones who prefered it as it is. Who liked what they were doing in the first one. Who don't believe it needs changing. Who liked those tiny changes.
I myself do like the little things in a game.

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

1) Refugee from Lothering unifies city-states in comparison to Warden unifies country in ending a civil war and defeating the Blight, pretty dull really..

2) Flows naturally? i can choose what Hawke says/does but I am not Hawke, i'm merely guiding/steering Hawke and being the omnipotent figure watching over all making sure everything goes the right way.

3) Okay sure, in the middle is lights up whether its Sarcastic, Bad, Good, Curious, Evil, Heroic, but can you fit all of that in just one dialogue option with VO? No you can't. In DA:O when I said "No" i can rolepaly it to be sarcastic, mean, straight-foward, positive, nice, objective, all tehse things, at best when i say "No" in this new dialogue system in DA2 it's going to be "No" highlighted as negative.

1) Really? Your qualm is you don't get to save the world? Seriously?

2) You can choose what *you* say. Is that really impossible to understand? If you like role play so much role play this to be *your* voice.

3) You can pretend whatever you want. But the the writer still *wrote* how "No" sounded to others. You may "pretend" that it was a sarcastic "No" but the NPCs in this world will still hear what the *writer* intended and *not* what you pretend to yourself.

IE:

NPC1: Would you like to spare some gold, sir?

You: Yes

NPC1: Thank you very much, sir! *takes gold and walks away

You pretended you were saying a sarcastic "yes". And maybe in your mind he didn't get your gold. But your actual character is still out five gold sovereigns and that beggar is pretty happy.

[druid126]

IronVanguard wrote...

druid126 wrote...
Would you not say that those very first video games had their sequels stray from their roots? The story universes they took place in had the same concepts and feelings but the actual mechanics changed. It shouldn't take 20 years for a game to improve. It should happen when they realise what they didn't like doing in the first one.

Race had very little bearing on the game short of a few dialogue nods and a 30 minute origin story. It limits choice in no way.

See, here's the problem. The angry fanbase here are the ones who prefered it as it is. Who liked what they were doing in the first one. Who don't believe it needs changing. Who liked those tiny changes.
I myself do like the little things in a game.

 As did I, actually. I loved when you were recognized as a one-time prince, or when you walked in to a Dalish camp and they recognized you as a friend. However, race does not limit personal choice beyond a superficial appearance.

[Altima Darkspells]

druid126 wrote...

Would you not say that those very first video games had their sequels stray from their roots? The story universes they took place in had the same concepts and feelings but the actual mechanics changed. It shouldn't take 20 years for a game to improve. It should happen when they realise what they didn't like doing in the first one.

Race had very little bearing on the game short of a few dialogue nods and a 30 minute origin story. It limits choice in no way.

Pacman had Mrs. Pacman.  Tetris...did it even have a sequel?  Final Fantasy is a special case, since each game is prety much only a sequel in the previous one in name only.  Golden-Eye was successful...which is why they made Perfect Dark.  What you're talking about are improvements, but the information we've received already has portrayed DA2 as not having similar concepts and feelings with regards to DAO.

Race affected multiple dialogues and quest outcomes.  Races affected stats.  The Mage class was its own origin, which also allowed you to dive into the Fade where other classes could not.  Race and Origin affected the end game between Anora and/or Alistair, if you went that path.

It's fine if you didn't appreciate it.  No one's forcing you to.  However, now we're not even getting the choice and are shoehorned into playing a plain-Jane boring human.

[Gatt9]

Here's your problem...



No developers are taking risks. They're taking the safe choices and remaking the same couple games over and over and over...kinda like how Mass Effect went from an RPG to a Shooter.



Taking risks would be not doing the same thing everyone else is doing.

[Addai]

druid126 wrote...
Accept things change. It's the way of the world.

Did you read that on a fortune cookie?  LOL  I'll "accept" the suppposed inevitability and awesome awesomeness of change by spending my dollars elsewhere.

I also accept the devs' word that they felt this is the best way to present the particular story they want to tell.  It sounds to me like it ought to be a movie rather than a game, but whatever.  In the meantime, the forum exists so that people can interact about the games.  DAO was a game I actually like and there are few of those.  I had hoped DA2 might continue to be different, not another clone of the video game that an attention-deficient teenage male wants to play.  Just expressing my disappointment at where the franchise has gone since the original.

Modifié par Addai67, 11 juillet 2010 - 05:41 .

[BloodRaith]

condiments1 wrote...
Hey why not multiplayer action with RPG elements? Bioware get on this please.

SW:TOR? 

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

1) Really? Your qualm is you don't get to save the world? Seriously?

2) You can choose what *you* say. Is that really impossible to understand? If you like role play so much role play this to be *your* voice.

3) You can pretend whatever you want. But the the writer still *wrote* how "No" sounded to others. You may "pretend" that it was a sarcastic "No" but the NPCs in this world will still hear what the *writer* intended and *not* what you pretend to yourself.

IE:

NPC1: Would you like to spare some gold, sir?

You: Yes

NPC1: Thank you very much, sir! *takes gold and walks away

You pretended you were saying a sarcastic "yes". And maybe in your mind he didn't get your gold. But your actual character is still out five gold sovereigns and that beggar is pretty happy.

1) My qualm is that the story of DA2 is pretty dull in comaprison and would be a smoother transition if it was just a Warden's story continued rather than Hawke's. 

2)I like role-play very much thank you because I play RPGs which stand for Role-playing games, if you want to insult role-playing then why play a RPG? unless you're jsut here for 'cool grafix' and 'combat systemz'.
But anyways, no I'm not choosing what I'm saying i'm choosing what Hawke is saying because it's Hawke not me. In DA:O I was the Warden, why? Because a Warden is an ambigious title and can mean anyone, but Hawke is not, it's a surname, a set name, not a title, there can only be one Hawke, and i'm not Hawke.

3 and to the IE) Then I can role-play that i made a bad descision . You see when you role-play, jsut like in real life, you can't be 100% sure of what the NPC 's resposn would be, you can assume but you can't know, therefore the NPC's respons is mute if you can't know, that's why role-play is called role-play because you play the role not play the role and expect to know what the counterpart is saying.

[IronVanguard]

druid126 wrote...

IronVanguard wrote...

druid126 wrote...
Would you not say that those very first video games had their sequels stray from their roots? The story universes they took place in had the same concepts and feelings but the actual mechanics changed. It shouldn't take 20 years for a game to improve. It should happen when they realise what they didn't like doing in the first one.

Race had very little bearing on the game short of a few dialogue nods and a 30 minute origin story. It limits choice in no way.

See, here's the problem. The angry fanbase here are the ones who prefered it as it is. Who liked what they were doing in the first one. Who don't believe it needs changing. Who liked those tiny changes.
I myself do like the little things in a game.

 As did I, actually. I loved when you were recognized as a one-time prince, or when you walked in to a Dalish camp and they recognized you as a friend. However, race does not limit personal choice beyond a superficial appearance.

Well, yes.
I'm just trying to help you understand that, well. Angry people on a forum can't be reasoned with. For the most part.

[druid126]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Pacman had Mrs. Pacman.  Tetris...did it even have a sequel?  Final Fantasy is a special case, since each game is prety much only a sequel in the previous one in name only.  Golden-Eye was successful...which is why they made Perfect Dark.  What you're talking about are improvements, but the information we've received already has portrayed DA2 as not having similar concepts and feelings with regards to DAO.

Race affected multiple dialogues and quest outcomes.  Races affected stats.  The Mage class was its own origin, which also allowed you to dive into the Fade where other classes could not.  Race and Origin affected the end game between Anora and/or Alistair, if you went that path.

It's fine if you didn't appreciate it.  No one's forcing you to.  However, now we're not even getting the choice and are shoehorned into playing a plain-Jane boring human.

Oh I appreciate it. It had nothing to do with my write-up, however. That was about how things change. How no evolution is a bad thing. Those feelings and concepts in regards to story, role-play, and character development? All still there. What sounds like is changing are the game mechanics. Which those games did change. Whether race did or did not, actually, affect quest outcomes has nothing to do with this.

DA2 isn't DAO, this is why the game isn't called Dragon Age: Origins 2. It's called Dragon Age 2. It takes place in the same universe but with a different concept. I'm sorry you don't appreciate humans or the stories they tell, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate plot advancements. No one is forcing you to do that either. But things change and you either accept it or load up your DA:O games and play that for the rest of your RPG career.

[druid126]

IronVanguard wrote...

Well, yes.
I'm just trying to help you understand that, well. Angry people on a forum can't be reasoned with. For the most part.

A fact I'm starting to realise. :X

It seems some valid points of mine, at least I thought they were valid, are simply being ignored in order to flame change. *Sad panda face*

[Khayness]

There aren't any reasoning here, people just hold onto their opinion and repeating it over and over until everyone gets bored.

[Riona45]

Anathemic wrote...
1) My qualm is that the story of DA2 is pretty dull in comaprison and would be a smoother transition if it was just a Warden's story continued rather than Hawke's. 

You know nothing about the story, so how could anyone take this point seriously?

[IronVanguard]

druid126 wrote...

IronVanguard wrote...

Well, yes.
I'm just trying to help you understand that, well. Angry people on a forum can't be reasoned with. For the most part.

A fact I'm starting to realise. :X

It seems some valid points of mine, at least I thought they were valid, are simply being ignored in order to flame change. *Sad panda face*

Er, yeah. That's how things go.
First forum fight?

[Khayness]

Riona45 wrote...

You know nothing about the story, so how could anyone take this point seriously?

You sir. You are in denial!

[druid126]

Anathemic wrote...

1) My qualm is that the story of DA2 is pretty dull in comaprison and would be a smoother transition if it was just a Warden's story continued rather than Hawke's. 

2)I like role-play very much thank you because I play RPGs which stand for Role-playing games, if you want to insult role-playing then why play a RPG? unless you're jsut here for 'cool grafix' and 'combat systemz'.
But anyways, no I'm not choosing what I'm saying i'm choosing what Hawke is saying because it's Hawke not me. In DA:O I was the Warden, why? Because a Warden is an ambigious title and can mean anyone, but Hawke is not, it's a surname, a set name, not a title, there can only be one Hawke, and i'm not Hawke.

3 and to the IE) Then I can role-play that i made a bad descision . You see when you role-play, jsut like in real life, you can't be 100% sure of what the NPC 's resposn would be, you can assume but you can't know, therefore the NPC's respons is mute if you can't know, that's why role-play is called role-play because you play the role not play the role and expect to know what the counterpart is saying.

Very valid points and sound reasoning. No, I was not insulting your enjoyment of role play. I'll actually admit I love playing Dungeons and Dragons so, thank you, but I'm quite familiar with what RPG stands for. I've spelled it out several times when I stated my dislike of Awakenings and a lack of ability to chat with your companions. Does this make me a hypocrite? It might do. But in the end I accept that games change and you can either roll with those changes or get lost in the dust.

If you are such a great role-player surely you can ignore the voice-over? Surely you can remove the audio files for his or her speeches?

Yes, Warden was a title and Hawke is not. However Aiducan (or however you spell it) was a name that you were stuck with too. As I recall the human also had a forced last name. It doesn't limit your role-play. At least it shouldn't. Assuming you know how to role-play.

[Riona45]

Khayness wrote...


You sir. You are in denial!

Why did you assume I was male?

[druid126]

Riona45 wrote...

Khayness wrote...


You sir. You are in denial!

Why did you assume I was male?

Because on the internetz everyone is male by default. Girl is an acronym to Guy In Real Life to the average male internet user. =)

[Anathemic]

druid126 wrote...

Very valid points and sound reasoning. No, I was not insulting your enjoyment of role play. I'll actually admit I love playing Dungeons and Dragons so, thank you, but I'm quite familiar with what RPG stands for. I've spelled it out several times when I stated my dislike of Awakenings and a lack of ability to chat with your companions. Does this make me a hypocrite? It might do. But in the end I accept that games change and you can either roll with those changes or get lost in the dust.

If you are such a great role-player surely you can ignore the voice-over? Surely you can remove the audio files for his or her speeches?

Yes, Warden was a title and Hawke is not. However Aiducan (or however you spell it) was a name that you were stuck with too. As I recall the human also had a forced last name. It doesn't limit your role-play. At least it shouldn't. Assuming you know how to role-play.

1)Not all change is good, sometimes we have to act on what we feel is right, that's how the rebellion won in Star Wars right?

2) I could, but that still wouldn't do anything about the paraphrased dialogue wheel. Example: if i wanted to threaten someone I don't want them punching, sure it would be mute but the punch will still be there.

3) You were barely called Aeducan or Cousland in teh game, you were mostly called the ambiguous title of Warden unlike in DA2 where you are Hawke and are always goign to be refrenced as Hawke. So no, having a last name in DA:O doesn't limit role-play but in DA2 it will as seeing you can only be Hawke.

[LPPrince]

Yes, it was successful.



But what's wrong with making it MORE successful?

[Riona45]

druid126 wrote...
Yes, Warden was a title and Hawke is not. However Aiducan (or however you spell it) was a name that you were stuck with too. As I recall the human also had a forced last name. It doesn't limit your role-play. At least it shouldn't. Assuming you know how to role-play.

In fact every origin came with a set last name.

[Khayness]

Riona45 wrote...

Why did you assume I was male?

Because of highly more likeliness. But I guess this assumption is outrageous for such a person as yourself.