121 réponses à ce sujet

[hexaligned]

Revya wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Leafs43 wrote... People seem to think Bioware has the time and money to redo the dialog 6 individual times.

The Old Republic will have more dialogue than all there games combined,
including Baldurs Gate, seems they do.

BioWare Austin is being supported by both Electronic Arts as well as LucasArts, who holds casting calls for voice actors in five different cities around the world.

http://www.mmorpg.co...ions-SWTOR.html

The Old Republic is estimated to have cost at least $100 million to produce already. There is a lot riding on it to be very successful.

I think EA's Boss said that TOR needed to sell 2million to break even.

Also if Tor is successful I think Biowares future is some what asured

MMO's are more complicated than that, you need to KEEP a player base to turn a profit, when you figure in things like servers and dedicated techs to keep them running at all times, not to mention GM's and patch teams that need to be workign 24/7.  Selling an impressive amount of initial releases based on hype doesn't get you very far in the MMo world, if half of them unsub after the first motnh. Not to mention you have to compete with free servers, which means you pretty much have to be pumping out new content non stop.  Look at Warhammer and LOTRO these days.

Modifié par relhart, 11 juillet 2010 - 07:04 .

[Herr Uhl]

ejoslin wrote...

virumor wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

What made it so replayable was the relationships you formed. You forged friendships and loves, and those were stories in and of themselves. And some of us really felt a part of that and had real emotional reactions to those stories.

What's so replayable in those? There's only 4 romance partners. 

Any Japanese dating sim has this beaten.

I wouldn't know -- never played a dating sim; I suppose you could fill me on those.  But it's not only the romances.  It's the friendships as well.  And different types of relationships; Alistair is quite different when he hates your chracter than when he is your character's best friend or lover. It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't get it, though.

But even talking about the romances, they can play out in different ways.  But that is only part of the game.  It's the relationships, friendships, enemies, lovers, when trying to save the world -- it gives a different perspective.  Ah well, I don't think you get it nor want to try.  Which is maybe why you can't understand why it's so frustrating for many people who love DA:O.

Wait, what is so frustrating about it? Do you want the same characters back or do you think that there won't be any character relationships in DA2?

[Rubbish Hero]

It's pretty obvious The Old Republic will obliterate Mass Effect and Dragon Age sales.

[Orogun01]

virumor wrote...

Having many choices is redundant if they all lead to the same outcome anyway. Imagine if the Archdemon would actually win depending on some choices of the player character.

At least ME2 did somewhat better in that regard.

Then hopefully they won't be so transparent as ME2 or so easy to accomplish.

[Dave of Canada]

virumor wrote...

Having many choices is redundant if they all lead to the same outcome anyway. Imagine if the Archdemon would actually win depending on some choices of the player character.

In my opinion, no.

Let's take two options that all say the same thing.
Alistair: Let's go inside that room!
[Sarcastic] Sure, I mean.. the past few rooms were filled with nothing but undead, this one is sure to be different!
[Angry] Are you stupid? Those other rooms were filled with undead, you're a moron if you think this one is different.

With these choices, you're pretty much saying that you're not going to go into that room. Yet, you're allowed to invision how your character would say that to Alistair, if you're a sarcastic rogue then ofcourse you'd pick the sarcastic option even though the angry option leads to the same thing, your character has a different personality and plays like a different person.

This allows more customization for the player to feel that they are playing their character in the game, instead of the opposite where the way and tone he says that they aren't going in that room is predetermined by dialogue.

[Jimmy Fury]

Dave of Canada wrote...

virumor wrote...

Having many choices is redundant if they all lead to the same outcome anyway. Imagine if the Archdemon would actually win depending on some choices of the player character.

In my opinion, no.

Let's take two options that all say the same thing.
Alistair: Let's go inside that room!
[Sarcastic] Sure, I mean.. the past few rooms were filled with nothing but undead, this one is sure to be different!
[Angry] Are you stupid? Those other rooms were filled with undead, you're a moron if you think this one is different.

With these choices, you're pretty much saying that you're not going to go into that room. Yet, you're allowed to invision how your character would say that to Alistair, if you're a sarcastic rogue then ofcourse you'd pick the sarcastic option even though the angry option leads to the same thing, your character has a different personality and plays like a different person.

This allows more customization for the player to feel that they are playing their character in the game, instead of the opposite where the way and tone he says that they aren't going in that room is predetermined by dialogue.

But you never had the choice to go into the room. How you said it doesn't actually change the course of events.
Now compare that to ME2
Tali: Shepard, I have some ideas for the engines on the ship.
Wheel 1: Alright
Wheel 2: let's talk about something else.
Wheel 3: I have to go.

While the choices aren't very personal, the outcome of the choice is actually a major change in how the events of the game play out. If you agree someone lives, if you ignore her someone dies.


Incidentally I still don't quite see why these two systems have to be mutually exclusive. The rumors (i'm calling them rumors until they're confirmed by my own eyeballs) say the DA2 wheel will not only give you convo options but will tell you the tone they'll be. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

[ejoslin]

Herr Uhl wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I wouldn't know -- never played a dating sim; I suppose you could fill me on those.  But it's not only the romances.  It's the friendships as well.  And different types of relationships; Alistair is quite different when he hates your chracter than when he is your character's best friend or lover. It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't get it, though.

But even talking about the romances, they can play out in different ways.  But that is only part of the game.  It's the relationships, friendships, enemies, lovers, when trying to save the world -- it gives a different perspective.  Ah well, I don't think you get it nor want to try.  Which is maybe why you can't understand why it's so frustrating for many people who love DA:O.

Wait, what is so frustrating about it? Do you want the same characters back or do you think that there won't be any character relationships in DA2?

Herr, I don't see how it could be as immersive.  I don't want the same characters back; I'm looking forward to new stories.

But what I was saying the basic story itself wasn't changing, but the characters within the story WERE different, and the personal story of the warden were all very immersive, and different.  A lot of people don't get that, for whatever reason.

Modifié par ejoslin, 11 juillet 2010 - 07:18 .

[Herr Uhl]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

But you never had the choice to go into the room. How you said it doesn't actually change the course of events.
Now compare that to ME2
Tali: Shepard, I have some ideas for the engines on the ship.
Wheel 1: Alright
Wheel 2: let's talk about something else.
Wheel 3: I have to go.

While the choices aren't very personal, the outcome of the choice is actually a major change in how the events of the game play out. If you agree someone lives, if you ignore her someone dies.


Incidentally I still don't quite see why these two systems have to be mutually exclusive. The rumors (i'm calling them rumors until they're confirmed by my own eyeballs) say the DA2 wheel will not only give you convo options but will tell you the tone they'll be. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

As to the first one, you want to streamline down party interaction to the bare: you want to sex me? Cross box A for yes and box b for no.

And to the second. There will be a tone, developers have confirmed it.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Incorrect, I cannot create a sarcastic or spoiled version of Commander Shepard. Commander Shepard is limited to being a trusting paragon, the unknown middle option guy or a racist renegade.

Shepard is really sarcastic if you pick the appropriate bottom-right options. If you always pick the three options, then yes, Shepard is a fixed archetype. But the same applies if you just buttom mash "1" on your keyboard (you're nice and cooperative) or button mash "4" on your keyboard (you're mean, and if you're human, potentially racist).

[Herr Uhl]

ejoslin wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Wait, what is so frustrating about it? Do you want the same characters back or do you think that there won't be any character relationships in DA2?

Herr, I don't see how it could be as immersive.  I don't want the same characters back; I'm looking forward to new stories.

But what I was saying the basic story itself wasn't changing, but the characters within the story WERE different, and the personal story of the warden were all very immersive, and different.  A lot of people don't get that, for whatever reason.

Yeah, I don't like the system, either. But many of the ME relationships (Edit: They are a decent enough place to start) being lacking is down to the writing being outright bad in some cases. I do think that people will wary in their conversations to you and how they react depending on how much they approve of you.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 11 juillet 2010 - 07:27 .

[jableskage]

Ecael wrote...

I don't think people realize that none of the recent BioWare games have actual exploration either.

guess we should see how SWTOR pans out???

[Addai]

I don't mind that the plot was moving in one general direction.  I prefer that there actually be a plot, so I happily accept certain limitations in this regard.  You had to save the world, and you had to choose one of two monarchs.  The richness was in the variety of characterization that you could accomplish along the way.  My PCs might even have chosen similar responses to quests, but have very different motivations and reactions to the same events.  It's this richness of characterization that I'm going to miss.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
In my opinion, no.

Let's take two options that all say the same thing.
Alistair: Let's go inside that room!
[Sarcastic] Sure, I mean.. the past few rooms were filled with nothing but undead, this one is sure to be different!
[Angry] Are you stupid? Those other rooms were filled with undead, you're a moron if you think this one is different.

With these choices, you're pretty much saying that you're not going to go into that room. Yet, you're allowed to invision how your character would say that to Alistair, if you're a sarcastic rogue then ofcourse you'd pick the sarcastic option even though the angry option leads to the same thing, your character has a different personality and plays like a different person.

This allows more customization for the player to feel that they are playing their character in the game, instead of the opposite where the way and tone he says that they aren't going in that room is predetermined by dialogue.

But from my perspective, whether or not you are sarcastic or angry depends on how Alistair reacts to your line of dialogue. If all you have is an "Oh," then it does not work for me.

I appreciate that for some, the ability to imagine motive is what makes them feel as if you've characterized as either sarcastic or angry, but for me, there needs to be an in-game recognition for that to feel real.

To me, the two systems are identical. VO I prefer because it makes the player character a more dynamic part of the world, while it retains the same reaction on the part of the NPCs.

The breakdown is the interpretation of the dialogue. If you take a literal view of dialogue, like I do, that it is said in one way only, interpreted in one way only (based on the reaction of the NPCs) then VO takes away nothing from the game. I appreciate that some do not see VO this way. But I think this is mistaken, and not how the writers themselves view dialogue.

[Corker]

So... did anyone ever really think that the Death Star wouldn't blow up? Or that the ****s would beat Indiana Jones? Or that Wesley and Buttercup wouldn't end up together?

Of course the Archdemon is going to die. The interesting part is *how* you get to that point and what else happens along the way.

Edit: Of course it's ***ed out.  *facepalm*  The National Socialist antagonists of "Raiders" mmmkay?

Modifié par Corker, 11 juillet 2010 - 07:53 .

[Ulfros]

Should've chosen another topic name. Wide open in my eyes refers to zones vs instances and where you are allowed to go, in which case, no, DA isn't wide open at all--it's very restricted.



When it comes to different experiences on different races/classes, I think it's pretty well done. Could be better, I suppose, but it's still good.

[Bryy_Miller]

Oblivion isn't as wide open as people think.

[Ecael]

ejoslin wrote...

virumor wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

What made it so replayable was the relationships you formed. You forged friendships and loves, and those were stories in and of themselves. And some of us really felt a part of that and had real emotional reactions to those stories.

What's so replayable in those? There's only 4 romance partners. 

Any Japanese dating sim has this beaten.

I wouldn't know -- never played a dating sim; I suppose you could fill me on those.  But it's not only the romances.  It's the friendships as well.  And different types of relationships; Alistair is quite different when he hates your chracter than when he is your character's best friend or lover. It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't get it, though.

But even talking about the romances, they can play out in different ways.  But that is only part of the game.  It's the relationships, friendships, enemies, lovers, when trying to save the world -- it gives a different perspective.  Ah well, I don't think you get it nor want to try.  Which is maybe why you can't understand why it's so frustrating for many people who love DA:O.

Some Japanese dating simulations aren't really dating simulations, but rather "visual novels" - essentially narrated books with several arcs (and thus open-ended).

There are a few visual novel games that have more spoken dialogue than Dragon Age: Origins does.

[Bryy_Miller]

slimgrin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Oblivion isn't as wide open as people think.

???

What the hell you smokin' bro?

Comparing world sizes in video games is stupid.

[Jimmy Fury]

Herr Uhl wrote...
As to the first one, you want to streamline down party interaction to the bare: you want to sex me? Cross box A for yes and box b for no.

Oh I never said I wanted that. I just don't understand people who claim the DA dialogue system is much more wide open than the ME system. Both have the benefits and their flaws.
I want a combination of the benefits of both. I want personal interactions that actually make a difference to the story.

[Maverick827]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I created four Human nobles.

One of them used only sarcastic dialogue, why? Because in my mind, I created him to be a sarcastic person.
One of them was a spoiled brat, she'd always scold 'commoners' and was rather respectful to the other nobles at the end.
One of them was a paladin in the true sense, honorable and good. He'd always do the right thing and always treat people with respect even they didn't deserve it in the end.
One of them was just a plain ol'bastard because he could.

Four different characters created from one Origin story, after the origin story their personalities didn't just flop - they continued to be who they were.

So you successfully played the game with only one origin four times through, each time creating a "different" character in your mind based on the emotions with which your character responded to other characters.

Where did you get a copy of DA2 so soon?!

[L33TDAWG]

The game was great and I doubt they would have wanted to spend 8 years and a **** ton of money doing that.

[Jimmy Fury]

Maverick827 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I created four Human nobles.

One of them used only sarcastic dialogue, why? Because in my mind, I created him to be a sarcastic person.
One of them was a spoiled brat, she'd always scold 'commoners' and was rather respectful to the other nobles at the end.
One of them was a paladin in the true sense, honorable and good. He'd always do the right thing and always treat people with respect even they didn't deserve it in the end.
One of them was just a plain ol'bastard because he could.

Four different characters created from one Origin story, after the origin story their personalities didn't just flop - they continued to be who they were.

So you successfully played the game with only one origin four times through, each time creating a "different" character in your mind based on the emotions with which your character responded to other characters.

Where did you get a copy of DA2 so soon?!

+10 Approval.