1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

CybAnt1 wrote...

My point is, yes, I don't enjoy the often blank expression-less Warden, but an unvoiced Warden doesn't have to lack facial, kinetic, and other emotional expressions. 

And frankly, it was far more odd how he lacked expressions in cutscenes, particularly how he didn't even crack a smile when Morrigan came to bed him one last time.... 

Whereas, I like playing a stoic character.  I absolutely do not want him mugging for the camera.

[the_one_54321]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
In DA:O you have a group of four units with ability progression directed
by you and that are moved across a map by mouse clicks, who's actions
are qeued up by mouse clicks and whos stories are developed deeper than
in most any other kind of game.

I couldn't resist.... :

In DA:O  ME2 you have a group of four  three units with ability progression directed
by you and that are moved across a map by mouse clicks, who's actions
are queued up chosen by mouse clicks and whos stories are developed deeper than
in most any other kind of game.

You can do all of that in ME2. You can direct where your party goes, decide which attacks they use (not quite a queue but on-the-fly can be more useful in some cases), control how they level up, and go off on some very rich personal missions with them.

The difference between queing up actions and choosing individual actions is definitive. Your tone makes it sound like the switch from que to choose is arbitrary when it actually changes the whole scope of the game.
Also, you don't move your units in ME2. The squad handles it's own actions. In DA:O you can individually tell every party member exactly where you want them to go and what you want them to do.

Your post is missleading and very inaccurate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can direct your squadmates to move to a specific location, and you can do so individually. It really is much better than ME was in that regard.

But, they don't then stay there. The continue to move around on their own quite a lot. Actually controlling their movements overall is really difficult.

[the_one_54321]

And it's not difficult at all in DA:O. Not if you know your way around the mechanics.

[soteria]

The difference between queing up actions and choosing individual actions is definitive. Your tone makes it sound like the switch from que to choose is arbitrary when it actually changes the whole scope of the game.

What? Abilities aren't queued in DA:O. All you can do is choose what ability you want someone to use right now. NWN had a queue. DA:O doesn't. The difference between ability activation in ME2 and DA:O is that abilities in ME2 take place instantly whereas abilities in DA:O have a conjuration and animation time.

[the_one_54321]

soteria wrote...

The difference between queing up actions and choosing individual actions is definitive. Your tone makes it sound like the switch from que to choose is arbitrary when it actually changes the whole scope of the game.

What? Abilities aren't queued in DA:O. All you can do is choose what ability you want someone to use right now. NWN had a queue. DA:O doesn't. The difference between ability activation in ME2 and DA:O is that abilities in ME2 take place instantly whereas abilities in DA:O have a conjuration and animation time.

I won't try to claim that you're incorrect. But semantics don't make the differences any less different.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

The difference between queing up actions and choosing individual actions is definitive. Your tone makes it sound like the switch from que to choose is arbitrary when it actually changes the whole scope of the game.

What? Abilities aren't queued in DA:O. All you can do is choose what ability you want someone to use right now. NWN had a queue. DA:O doesn't. The difference between ability activation in ME2 and DA:O is that abilities in ME2 take place instantly whereas abilities in DA:O have a conjuration and animation time.

That animation time makes your first claim not entirely true.

If you trigger a spell while the last spell is still being animated, the spell you selected won't start being cast until the previous one is complete.  So DAO does effectively have a queue, but it is only one action long.

[soteria]

I won't try to claim that you're incorrect. But semantics don't make the differences any less different.

I'm disagreeing with you that the difference between "queue" and "choose" is a cause ("changes the whole scope of the game") of the different gameplay in the two games. It's an effect. I use quotes because the only reason there's a difference here is that the underlying mechanics are vastly different. Otherwise, the superficial similarities are there, even though one game is tactical with a third person camera and the other is action with a first person camera.

That animation time makes your first claim not entirely true.

If you trigger a spell while the last spell is still being animated, the spell you selected won't start being cast until the previous one is complete. So DAO does effectively have a queue, but it is only one action long.

Well, sure, but with the exception of the PC (or currently controlled character) I'd say actually queueing actions in that fashion is fairly rare, isn't it? In terms of controlling your companions, generally you're just going to pause the game and tell them what to do, and they immediately execute that action, similar to ME2. Unfortunately, the "queue" in DA:O can get cleared for a variety of reasons, and pausing, starting an action, unpausing, and ordering up another on multiple characters has been unreliable, in my experience.

Ugh.  I would have loved to have an actual queue, even if it were only two or three abilities long.  I still remember when they told us DA:O wouldn't have one.  "Unnecessary," like the combat log.

Modifié par soteria, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:02 .

[Jimmy Fury]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
In DA:O you have a group of four units with ability progression directed
by you and that are moved across a map by mouse clicks, who's actions
are qeued up by mouse clicks and whos stories are developed deeper than
in most any other kind of game.

I couldn't resist.... :

In DA:O  ME2 you have a group of four  three units with ability progression directed
by you and that are moved across a map by mouse clicks, who's actions
are queued up chosen by mouse clicks and whos stories are developed deeper than
in most any other kind of game.

You can do all of that in ME2. You can direct where your party goes, decide which attacks they use (not quite a queue but on-the-fly can be more useful in some cases), control how they level up, and go off on some very rich personal missions with them.

The difference between queing up actions and choosing individual actions is definitive. Your tone makes it sound like the switch from que to choose is arbitrary when it actually changes the whole scope of the game.
Also, you don't move your units in ME2. The squad handles it's own actions. In DA:O you can individually tell every party member exactly where you want them to go and what you want them to do.

Your post is missleading and very inaccurate.

You claiming my post is either of those things does not actually make my post either of those things.

-edit. The DA:O "queue"- and choosing an action are functionally the same because, as has been pointed out already, the queue only activates one additional action and then only when chosen at the correct moment. The closest DAO has to a full action queue is the tactics system which is far from perfect.
It also does not in any way change the entire scope of the game. It changes the time it takes for an action to be performed.

Unless the PC and 360 versions of ME2 have wildly different combat system and a different mission, you're just dead wrong on the second point. You can tell both of your squadmates where to go, what to do, and who to do it to. On Thane's recruitment mission you're even told to position your squadmates on either side of an elevator door. The ability selection circle is divided into 3 parts two of which represent your squadmates, by targeting an enemy and selecting one of their abilities they will perform that attack on the targeted enemy. If used properly this can allow you to combine 2 attacks on 1 enemy while your third party member focuses on another. You can, of course, let them do what they want but the option to control them does exist.

So no, what I said was neither inaccurate nor misleading.

-edit-
Not to mention that this is all faster and easier in ME2 as well since you don't have to pause and switch between every single character in order to set up what everyone is doing.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 22 juillet 2010 - 03:52 .

[Cancermeat]

After playing neverwinter nights 2 dragon age seems like a very good game.

[the_one_54321]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
-edit-
Not to mention that this is all faster and easier in ME2 as well since you don't have to pause and switch between every single character in order to set up what everyone is doing.

I'm glad you made that edit because it illustrates my point perfectly. Switching between party member control and setting up all the actions is precisely the difference that is in question here. It is what makes DA:O fit the description I made, and not ME or ME2.

[Jimmy Fury]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...
-edit-
Not to mention that this is all faster and easier in ME2 as well since you don't have to pause and switch between every single character in order to set up what everyone is doing.

I'm glad you made that edit because it illustrates my point perfectly. Switching between party member control and setting up all the actions is precisely the difference that is in question here. It is what makes DA:O fit the description I made, and not ME or ME2.

No it doesn't. It is functionally the exact same thing. You select the character, pick the action, designate a target, and execute. There is no functional difference between whether this is done by pausing and switching to a character or by pausing and simply selecting that characters actions from the interface on the screen. It does the exact same thing.

Less efficient =/= better.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 22 juillet 2010 - 04:09 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And they might.

But it would be nice if they could make some effort to accommodate those who think those features (particularly the voice) are an abomination.

The wheel is a UI element - there's no getting around that without a ton of work from BioWare (particularly QA), but the voice could conceivably be something we could just turn off without affecting anything else.

If they see VO as superior, though, and central to their presentation, that would be like accomodating those who think 2D graphics are superior. Obviously are going to say that merely adding a language switch is not at all equivlent to an entirely different engine from a resource standpoint and you're right.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Whereas, I like playing a stoic
character.  I absolutely do not want him mugging for the camera.

I wanted to play a character who hated the Warden's and wanted to be free of them at all costs, but the game denies you that at every turn, unless you rationalize, and you know I don't do that.

Take as an example the sloth demon nightmares. Each character receives something special that they ostensibly want that the demon takes from their memories. And to you, the Warden, he gives the end of the Blight. Now you can say he is simply wrong and has misread your character, and I agree - that is a viable interpretation beacuse he does this with other characters. Still, it is part of a broader case I make for that railroading. The fact that you only object to the visual sort seems arbitrary.

To be honest, you've yet to sufficiently satisfy me as to why you can't rationalize even things you see on the screen involving your own character as illusions or otherwise misunderstandings.

Modifié par In Exile, 22 juillet 2010 - 04:14 .

[the_one_54321]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...
-edit-
Not to mention that this is all faster and easier in ME2 as well since you don't have to pause and switch between every single character in order to set up what everyone is doing.

I'm glad you made that edit because it illustrates my point perfectly. Switching between party member control and setting up all the actions is precisely the difference that is in question here. It is what makes DA:O fit the description I made, and not ME or ME2.

No it doesn't. It is functionally the exact same thing. You select the character, pick the action, designate a target, and execute. There is no functional difference between whether this is done by pausing and switching to a character or by pausing and simply selecting that characters actions from the interface on the screen. It does the exact same thing.

Less efficient =/= better.

You are entirely missing the point. This isn't about what functions better. What would function best would be an action game with just the right amount of buttons and abilities to go with them. This is about form and preference. ME does not become a better game by virtue of being more efficient. If that were the case I could say that God of War is indeed a far better franchise than DA:O. It's far more efficient in it's gameplay.
All that matters is that they are different and that they should remain different and not become more similar.

[Jimmy Fury]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You are entirely missing the point. This isn't about what functions better. What would function best would be an action game with just the right amount of buttons and abilities to go with them. This is about form and preference. ME does not become a better game by virtue of being more efficient. If that were the case I could say that God of War is indeed a far better franchise than DA:O. It's far more efficient in it's gameplay.
All that matters is that they are different and that they should remain different and not become more similar.

I'm not missing the point. You keep changing the point.
The entire point of our argument was:
AlanC9 pointed out that your description of the RTS units system didn't apply to Origins any more than it applied to ME. In response to him you said:

the_one_54321 wrote...
In DA:O you have a group of four units with ability progression directed by you and that are moved across a map
by mouse clicks, who's actions are qeued up by mouse clicks and whos stories are developed deeper than in most any other kind of game. I'd say DA:O pulled off that kind of gameplay fairly well. And so long as the changes stay within those parameters, so will DA][.

I simply pointed out that those features you listed did indeed exist in ME2.

However, since I pointed that out you've attempted to steer the debate in 3 different directions to avoid my point.
I'm not budging on this one. You description fits ME2.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 22 juillet 2010 - 04:45 .

[the_one_54321]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
However, since I pointed that out you've attempted to steer the debate in 3 different directions to avoid my point.
I'm not budging on this one. You description fits ME2.

The difference in form within the mechanics is drastic. The two games are nothing alike. Frankly, I'm surprised that I have to say so, or that there is anyone who would disagree with the notion.

[Jimmy Fury]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...
However, since I pointed that out you've attempted to steer the debate in 3 different directions to avoid my point.
I'm not budging on this one. You description fits ME2.

The difference in form within the mechanics is drastic. The two games are nothing alike. Frankly, I'm surprised that I have to say so, or that there is anyone who would disagree with the notion.

Make that 4 times. We are not talking about the games in general being alike, we are talking about the very specific list you provided.
1: units with ability progression directed by you
2: that are moved across a map by mouse clicks
3: actions are qeued[sic] up by mouse clicks
4: whos stories are developed deeper than in most any other kind of game
Again, change the word queued to chosen (although since it has been pointed out numerous times I'm almost inclined to argue your use of the word queue in general. I digress. back to my point) and those 4 features are all in ME2. It's not a matter of opinion or taste or preference it is an objective statement of fact.
Nothing personal, I'm not trying to debate which is the better game because frankly I like them both. I was pointing out something I found funny and you're attempting to claim I was inaccurate in my statement when I was verifiably correct.

So to quote a comment on one of my favorite youtube vids,...
"Legion is doing the robot. -Your argument has been rendered invalid."

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 22 juillet 2010 - 05:04 .

[Jimmy Fury]

wow...
did Legion render everyone's arguments invalid? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

Unfortunately, the "queue" in DA:O can get cleared for a variety of reasons, and pausing, starting an action,
unpausing, and ordering up another on multiple characters has been unreliable, in my experience.

The worst example I found was the beginning of combat (which is some sort of different metaphysical state from non-combat, becahse the rules of the world change).

So If I see some darkspawn down a corridor, and I want to ambush them, I can have someone start casting Blizzard.  And then, while that is casting, I have someone else fire an arrow down the hall to draw the darkspawn toward us.  Since the range of Blizzard is shorter than the range of the arrow, my hope is that the darkspawn will run toward meand be caught in the AoE of Blizzard when it eventually fires.

Except, as soon as that arrow hits the darkspawn, "combat" begins and all my spells are cancelled, even though casting is already underway, and the cooldown timer starts so I can't even recast.

I really hated that.

In Exile wrote...

To be honest, you've yet to sufficiently satisfy me as to why you can't rationalize even things you see on the screen involving your own character as illusions or otherwise misunderstandings.

First of all, I'm not rationalising anything.  Rationalisation happens after the fact.  My reasoning happens first. 

The reason I'm not willing to correct explicit content is two-fold.  First, if I do then there's nowhere within the explicit content to draw the line.  How then do I even know I'm in Denerim if I'm willing to consider the possibility that what the game explicitly tells me isn't true?  And second, nothing I'm doing actually contradicts the game.  All of the changes I'm making to implicit content are consistent with the presentation of the explicit content.  Remember that I don't think the implicit content is even there, so I'm not actually changing anything.  I'm just making up something myself that has no affect on the game at all (I'm drawing a shapr distinction here between the game - the piece of software BioWare sells me - and the game world, which is where my characters live; I can change the game world quite a bit as long as I never change the game).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 juillet 2010 - 06:32 .

[Trogloditius]

42 pages in 10 days, but here's my 2 cents anyways....

a) the marketing for DAO was horrible, but the game was far richer in story and dialogue than I could have ever imagined and is a classic IMO.

The ME franchise has not lived up to my expectations for an RPG so I've abandoned that having only bought the first game. There were lots of warning signs of a transition there, and, unfortunately, they were mostly true.

c) because of my experience with DAO and ME1/2 I'm going to ignore the marketing for DA2 and wait for reviews but still probably buy. Unfortunately everything released by Bioware now goes through the EA-reality-distortion field and needs to taken with a handful of salt or just plain ignored. I hope that now, since DA2 is a wholly post EA release, standards will not slip below those set with DAO.

Modifié par Trogloditius, 22 juillet 2010 - 06:42 .

[soteria]

The worst example I found was the beginning of combat (which is some sort of different metaphysical state from non-combat, becahse the rules of the world change).

Yep. And it's even worse coming out of dialogue into combat, since for some reason the enemy can be in combat and charging you, but until you right-click on an enemy to put your party in combat, any abilities you ready will be canceled when you un-pause. It adds injury to insult.

[Jimmy Fury]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The worst example I found was the beginning of combat (which is some sort of different metaphysical state from non-combat, becahse the rules of the world change).

So If I see some darkspawn down a corridor, and I want to ambush them, I can have someone start casting Blizzard.  And then, while that is casting, I have someone else fire an arrow down the hall to draw the darkspawn toward us.  Since the range of Blizzard is shorter than the range of the arrow, my hope is that the darkspawn will run toward meand be caught in the AoE of Blizzard when it eventually fires.

Except, as soon as that arrow hits the darkspawn, "combat" begins and all my spells are cancelled, even though casting is already underway, and the cooldown timer starts so I can't even recast.

I really hated that.

seconded!
I've noticed something like that a couple of times with straggling enemies that weren't within... i dunno if there's a proper term for it, anyway they weren't close enough for the system to register them when combat ended but they were still running at me. It made this weird gap where there are enemies running at me but everyone has to finish sheathing their weapons, wait a beat for it to activate combat, and unsheath everything again.
By then the stupid corpses are already on top of us.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 22 juillet 2010 - 06:47 .

[darkchaz]

ty bioware cant wait for dragon age 2 ! i loved the first one

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First of all, I'm not rationalising anything.  Rationalisation happens after the fact.  My reasoning happens first. 

No, your reasoning happens after the fact at times. You've told me so yourself. For example, you find nothing odd about having a conversation take place in between point A and point B, if you have just experienced both, but according to how you have envisioned your character, point A is not sufficient to get to point B. So you imagine A', where your character (and potentially other NPCs, which you argue that you can control so long as you are true to their character) have some intermediary interaction to get them to point B.

This is what I am refering to.

The reason I'm not willing to correct explicit content is two-fold.  First, if I do then there's nowhere within the explicit content to draw the line.  How then do I even know I'm in Denerim if I'm willing to consider the possibility that what the game explicitly tells me isn't true? 

Ah, quite right. But the issue is with the implication. Bear with me for a second.

And second, nothing I'm doing actually contradicts the game.  All of the changes I'm making to implicit content are consistent with the presentation of the explicit content.  Remember that I don't think the implicit content is even there, so I'm not actually changing anything. 

Whether or not you think it is not there is irrelevant. For once, I'm going to argue from your theory of knowing (which is to say you know something if and only if you know it with certainty): for you to be self-consistent in this, you have to know it is not there.

Put it this way: deduction relies exclusively on implied meaning. If I say that A=>B and B=>C, then I have also said by neccesity that A=>C. Whether or not I realize that this is true does not make it true; it is true in virtue of the premises and entirely independent of me.

To add one potential response: I am not being semantic with your use of think, since I am aware you are using think here only to not be absolute, when from your perspective what you mean is that you take for granted that there is no meaning there for you to contradict.

What I am saying is that you cannot know for certain whether or not what you imagine as an appropriate interjection from A to B will not in fact be contradicted by events later in the story. This is not an appeal to some hidden whole law (since we spoke about Dworkin before) but rather merely the claim that when you are interjecting content in the game, which requires introduction a state of affairs the engine cannot handle, you cannot know for certain whether or not what you are introducing will not be contradicted by events later in the game.

To give you a particular example, you always consider characters unreliable narrators and subvert what they say about you for the sake of your character concept. To me, that is no different than considering physical events hallucinations. Ah, but you will say: one character lying is more plausible than a mass halucination. The answer is that it need not be a mass one (depending on what you are ignoring) so you could plausibly deny your own characters experience. Say you are separated from the party and meet up later. The intervening period could all be just a dream, in the characters head, and real reality being otherwise, with the only people that may deny it either not existing at all or being unreliable narrators (as Trask was, in our discussion long ago). If you are willing to grant this, I see no distinction between that and outright denying scenes.

I'm just making up something myself that has no affect on the game at all (I'm drawing a shapr distinction here between the game - the piece of software BioWare sells me - and the game world, which is where my characters live; I can change the game world quite a bit as long as I never change the game).

Supposing we grant there is such a thing as the game world, you can only do that and retain internal consistency insofar as you are not contradicing established events in the game. Those are fixed points.

[soteria]

seconded!

I've noticed something like that a couple of times with straggling enemies that weren't within... i dunno if there's a proper term for it, anyway they weren't close enough for the system to register them when combat ended but they were still running at me. It made this weird gap where there are enemies running at me but everyone has to finish sheathing their weapons, wait a beat for it to activate combat, and unsheath everything again.

By then the stupid corpses are already on top of us.

I think the underlying issue is the strict divide between being in and out of combat. It's not a mechanic Bioware has a lot of experience with. They tried to copy WoW, I think, but for some reason they also consider you to be in combat just for being near an enemy. That really shreds the stealth game. I guess with combat stealth every 10 seconds players could abuse it to get out of combat and regen health in solo games, but I kinda feel like... so what? They can also make loads of cheap health poultices to heal themselves.