271 réponses à ce sujet

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Alrite, let's play:
Decipher the Double-talk!!

Round 1! Don't fix what isn't broken!
In the recent GameInformer article, Greg Zeschuk says that you shouldn't try to fix what's not broken. Why, then, is DA2 such a drastic departure? The article goes on and on about how successful DAO was, and how that proved that fans still like the old-style RPG format. So, again, if you don't want to fix what isn't broken, why are you setting out to do just that? This doesn't make any sense. People liked DAO. BioWare supposedly liked DAO, so why does it seem like I'm going to be playing Mass Effect?

Round 2! Nostalgia gaming.
This can be aimed at BioWare or Joe Juba, though I assume Joe is parroting BioWare's sentiment in order to write an accurate article. Anyways, nostalgia can't hold up a series? Okay, DAO was a tribute to Baldur's Gate. So? People liked it and it sold well. Saying that nostalgia can't hold up the DA series, so it must be radically changed, is completely senseless. Why can't DA2 simply be a follow-up tribute to Dragon Age: Origins and maintain its style? What are you trying to say about today's gaming market by insisting that DA2 must be changed from DAO because DAO was too "nostalgic"? And what the hell is meant by "aging design"? All games have "aging designs", but the thing is that age of design does not alter a game's fun-factor. This whole concept evokes a rather hefty "lolwut".

Round 3! 'A Story in Pieces'
Yeah, this whole mini-article was rather strange. It basically says that the game is told in a narrative style by certain characters and implies that Hawke will be warping around the world and timeline. What's troubling is that Mike Laidlaw repeatedly says that this method allows the focus of the game to be centered around the "action" and "skip the interstitial between key action moments..." Yeah, this is basically saying the game will be broken up into a series of remarkably linear "levels", isn't it? At best it sounds like we can hope for a ME2-style of exploration, which is pretty much trash. Sounds like we won't be able to properly explore places at our leisure because we'll be forced into specific areas to suit the narration.

Round 4! LITHE SUPER-NINJA SPARTANS!!!
Apparently combat is being reworked rather thoroughly, or at the very least "redesigned". Mike Laidlaw says he wants the classes to play like "unstoppable juggernaut, a lithe super-ninja, or field artillery."
respectively to warriors, rogues, and mages. And we've all read the "fight like a Spartan!" tagline on the main site. So, I'm hoping those are hyperbole because that sounds dreadful for an RPG. He also goes on about wanting players to get in enemies' faces and cut heads off and making everything feel faster. That also sounds a little extreme. They say we can still play tactically, or "like a general", but is this going to be some stylized, watered-down action game or something?

Round 5! Depth vs. Breadth
This one's straight-forward. They're saying the focus on DA2's combat skills will be on "depth" and not "breadth". Yeah, that's just fancy-speak for saying that we'll have fewer combat abilities. Granted this is countered by them claiming that we will be able to alter or improve our abilities as we go. The example given is the fireball, with claims that it will let you tailor this spell to the way you want it to be. Now, as a realist who has played many games, this sounds like a puffed-up way of saying that you're going to offer spell evolution at fixed points, such as "Reach level 5: Choose if you want your fireball to have a wider AOE or cause more damage!". That doesn't change the spell or gameplay in any specific way. Maybe I'm wrong, but, hey, I'm only being realistic. I don't see this "depth" they're claiming to be very deep.

Round 6! Sexier Visuals!!!
We've all seen the new art style for DA2. Now, it is claimed that the goal is for people to be able to see a screenshot of DA2 and know right away that what they're looking at is, in fact, DA2. They don't want it to be confused with another fantasy IP like LOTR. Well, you've got that, BioWare, so congrats! The darkspawn grunts look horrid, and I would never dream that they were part of Tolkien's IP. That's personal opinion, though. The real issue here is that claim that these visuals are "sexier" and "bloodier" and more properly convey the essence of DA2. WTF does that mean? XD Seriously, I'm at a genuine loss for this one.

Round 7! Evolution Via Theft!
You want to evolve your games? A good idea is to make them each unique in their own ways by capitalizing on what makes different. Your choice here seems to be "steal things from other popular games we've made bcause they were popular and we can make them work in this time frame before release!" Yeah, we've all heard the jokes that this game is really Dragon Effect 2. And it's true. Much has been borrowed from Mass Effect here, be it the really crappy generic white-dude marketing icon, the dialogue wheel, the voiced PC, etc. I find it odd that you call this an "evolution" of Dragon Age when its really a ripoff of another game you've put out yourselves. It hasn't evolved; it's simply been altered almost entirely into something else.

Final Round!! HeHawke Strikes Confusion!
I'm only adding this for my own sake, and because this has been going on for 4-5 years now. HeHawke is not a good icon. You've claimed already that sticking to a default icon for advertising is going to "avoid confusion", but that's not the case. This entire article uses the pronoun "he" when referring to Hawke, and the mini-article about customizing Hawke doesn't even mention the gender option. It only says that you can customize appearance and class, which is very confusing when coupled with the exclusive use of the male pronoun. There is only one place where a female Hawke is even alluded to, and that's underneath one of the pictures in a tiny segregated blurb that simply claims that BioWare says you can choose gender. Seriously, BioWare, include some recognition for a female Hawke on your website, in a screenshot, or something. I don't care if Hawke is on the box and jimmied into all the trailers for laziness's sake, but, for the love crikey acknowledge female Hawke's existence somehow!

tl;dr
lulz, DA2

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:08 .

[soteria]

Wow, what a pretentious thread title. I should have just read the tldr at the end, because it sums up your entire post perfectly. All I see here is a bunch of tired arguments and complaints that have already been posted in several dozen other threads.

[kraidy1117]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Round 3! 'A Story in Pieces'
Yeah, this whole mini-article was rather strange. It basically says that the game is told in a narrative style by certain characters and implies that Hawke will be warping around the world and timeline. What's troubling is that Mike Laidlaw repeatedly says that this method allows the focus of the game to be centered around the "action" and "skip the interstitial between key action moments..." Yeah, this is basically saying the game will be broken up into a series of remarkably linear "levels", isn't it? At best it sounds like we can hope for a ME2-style of exploration, which is pretty much trash. Sounds like we won't be able to properly explore places at our leisure because we'll be forced into specific areas to suit the narration.

DAO was linear. If linear means that the story will be more complex and better then what we got in DAO then I welcome the changes.

[Rubbish Hero]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Alrite, let's play:
Decipher the Double-talk!!

Round 1! Don't fix what isn't broken!
In the recent GameInformer article, Greg Zeschuk says that you shouldn't try to fix what's not broken. Why, then, is DA2 such a drastic departure?

To reel in the console crowd for even bigger bucks. This isn't a pc game, it's a console game templated to the pc. No wonder it sounded so much like Mass Effect.

[Brockololly]

Good post- I agree with everything you said after reading through the GI article.



I'm curious now to see some gameplay as I'm wondering if much of the jibber jabber in the interviews was just over use of marketing hype speak or if they really are radically changing every aspect of DA.



Its just confusing as on one hand the article claims how well Origins was received and sold so well, proving there was a market for old school RPGs. And yet in the next breath its saying how Origins was only fueled on nostalgia and if things aren't radically changed for DA2, there is no way another old school BG style RPG would do well critically or commercially.

[Bryy_Miller]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Round 1! Don't fix what isn't broken!
In the recent GameInformer article, Greg Zeschuk says that you shouldn't try to fix what's not broken. Why, then, is DA2 such a drastic departure?

Because improving upon something is not the same as fixing it. 

[kraidy1117]

Brockololly wrote...

Good post- I agree with everything you said after reading through the GI article.

I'm curious now to see some gameplay as I'm wondering if much of the jibber jabber in the interviews was just over use of marketing hype speak or if they really are radically changing every aspect of DA.

Its just confusing as on one hand the article claims how well Origins was received and sold so well, proving there was a market for old school RPGs. And yet in the next breath its saying how Origins was only fueled on nostalgia and if things aren't radically changed for DA2, there is no way another old school BG style RPG would do well critically or commercially.

DAO should have came out before ME.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

kraidy1117 wrote...
DAO was linear. If linear means that the story will be more complex and better then what we got in DAO then I welcome the changes.

I guess it depends on your idea of "linear". Everything is linear to a point. Point with DAO was that I can go to an area, play it for a few minutes, leave, play another area, leave, play a third area, finish it, go back to the first area, finish it, go back to the second area, and finish it. That's not really linear. You can choose to play it linearly, and, yes, some points will be "linear" as in you must accoplish tasks A, B, and/or C to reach the next area, but that's unavoidable in telling a story.

I like having exploration and options. ME2 did not really offer any of that. ME2 was linear. If you start an area you have to finish it or reload an earlier save.

soteria wrote...

Wow, what a pretentious thread title. I
should have just read the tldr at the end, because it sums up your
entire post perfectly. All I see here is a bunch of tired arguments and
complaints that have already been posted in several dozen other
threads.

How is it pretentious? I didn't claim to have
all the answers. I simply opened up a dialogue and put forth my
interpretations. If you disagree you are free to put forth your interpretations to see if we can root out any true, official meaning.

[SDNcN]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Round 2! Nostalgia gaming.

To grow Dragon Age into a distinct series rather than just continue to say "Dragon Age is old school . . . well kinda". Thats at least what I got from the article. Personally I like where they are going setting. Also I really want to see them continue to grow their own combat system now that they have the series to do it and are not tied down to adapting one of the iterations of D&D.

Round 3! 'A Story in Pieces'

Edit: Here is what was said in another thread.

Mary Kirby wrote . . .

The focus on the events isn't super-ultra tight.

Example: You
have the narrator saying, "Then, of course, the Champion arm-wrestled
the disembodied Beard of Duncan on the roof of the chantry!"  And
Cassandra saying, "What? How did that happen?" And the narrator
declares, "It's kind of crazy, but I think it all started when..."

And
then the game jumps to a playable point and the player can explore to
see what's changed over the years, chats with followers, rescues kittens
from trees, etc. at their leisure. All the stuff that you'd normally
do. It's just that as you're doing that, you maybe get a quest now and
then to investigate reports of an extremely aggressive beard skulking
around at night.

And eventually, you reach a point where someone
shouts, "Maker's breath! Someone come quick! There's a glorious beard
up on the chantry roof threatening to destroy the town!" And you can
probably guess that once you go up there, there's no coming back...

Round 4! LITHE SUPER-NINJA SPARTANS!!!

I actually took it as they want to make the three core classes more distinct. They even gave the example that in origins a dual whielding rogue is pretty much just the same as a dual whielding warrior but with less armor.

Round 5! Depth vs. Breadth

Well, it will be different at least. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and Origins all suffered from having redundent spells and spells that are just horrible and are never used. The shorter abilites list might actually match up with number spells/abilites players actually used in Origins.

Round 7! Evolution Via Theft!

It's taking the mechanics, adapting them to the setting, and attempting to do them better. I don't see many people claiming they ripped off mechanics from Baldur's Gate.

Modifié par SDNcN, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:32 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

How does one decipher that which was already crystal clear?

It's obvious you don't like how much different - much being somewhat of an overstatement here - the game is compared to it's predecessor. I am afraid you simply thought too much of the original game, as that one is also split into several "linear" levels, the only difference there being that you could access any one of them at any time, which more likely than not has been reduced to one or two by now.

However, departing from ye olde BioWare level formula of intro > four areas > endgame could easily bring some advantages with it. For one, it would allow for the story to slowly (but logically) build up to a certain climax, as well as more surprises and plottwists which generally don't happen in the usually equally important four areas.

If you'd like to properly explore an area afterwards or something, I'm sure you can. Perhaps not at any given moment, though, but certainly at some point before the endgame. Also, no need to fear much change in the combat department as long as you stay on pc, as it's the consoles on which that will get overhauled.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:29 .

[Greenface21]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Round 4! LITHE SUPER-NINJA SPARTANS!!!
Apparently combat is being reworked rather thoroughly, or at the very least "redesigned". Mike Laidlaw says he wants the classes to play like "unstoppable juggernaut, a lithe super-ninja, or field artillery."
respectively to warriors, rogues, and mages. And we've all read the "fight like a Spartan!" tagline on the main site. So, I'm hoping those are hyperbole because that sounds dreadful for an RPG. He also goes on about wanting players to get in enemies' faces and cut heads off and making everything feel faster. That also sounds a little extreme. They say we can still play tactically, or "like a general", but is this going to be some stylized, watered-down action game or something?

I believe he meant that he wanted the job classes to be more distingishable for each other. The part before that quote he goes to mention how in DAO the rogue class at times played like a dual-weilding warrior class with a lower class of armour.  He also goes on to say PC players will still have the classic pause and play while console players will have a more fluid battle system. I dont really understand what you mean by watered down tho.

* looks like i was beaten to the punch

Modifié par Greenface21, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:32 .

[sporky1]

Round 1:The idea that its becoming like Mass Effect is simply fans talking on a few bits of information. Oh, and Mass Effect works well too. So instead of fixing what's not broken, Bioware could be just adding more things that work to what already works.



Round 2: Cannot honestly comment on this one, as I did not follow Bioware as far back as BG.



Round 3: I absolutely love the idea of narration. It just seems so Medieval! Besides, DAO was still broken up into tiny levels. The only difference was random battles! Lack of "inbetween time" does not make a game linear. The game is still going to have a ton of choices (the key events).



Round 4: I agree the "fight like a spartan" thing freaks me out, but it has also been said that the PC combat system will remain much the same. Hopefully, they are just defining the classes to a greater level. The new mage stuff sounds sick, but I still need more info to form an opinion.



Round 5: I thought there were too many moves in Dragon Age anyway. Odds are if you were playing a warrior or rogue, you focused your points in one area. Quality is ALWAYS better than Quantity.



Round 6: You said it well enough



Round 7: You can't steal from your own company. My biggest complaint about DAO was that there was no voice! If that happens, I tend to put my own voice in the character. Not cool when you are playing as the opposite gender, and boring when you hear your voice every day. The claim that its been "altered almost entirely" is pretty much the big criticism everyone is giving, but howso? How does a PC with a voice change a game SO much?



Final Round: I have always like Bioware because they tend to treat groups fairly within their games. Its too bad that femHawke is barely mentioned, because it would have stood out more for readers of Game Informer. Generic guy character gets dull after a while. Hopefully she'll get a lot of attention soon.



Note: I am not trying to argue here, just stating my own opinion on each thing you mentioned. Thanks for being informative though!

[kraidy1117]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
DAO was linear. If linear means that the story will be more complex and better then what we got in DAO then I welcome the changes.

I guess it depends on your idea of "linear". Everything is linear to a point. Point with DAO was that I can go to an area, play it for a few minutes, leave, play another area, leave, play a third area, finish it, go back to the first area, finish it, go back to the second area, and finish it. That's not really linear. You can choose to play it linearly, and, yes, some points will be "linear" as in you must accoplish tasks A, B, and/or C to reach the next area, but that's unavoidable in telling a story.

I like having exploration and options. ME2 did not really offer any of that. ME2 was linear. If you start an area you have to finish it or reload an earlier save.

soteria wrote...

Wow, what a pretentious thread title. I
should have just read the tldr at the end, because it sums up your
entire post perfectly. All I see here is a bunch of tired arguments and
complaints that have already been posted in several dozen other
threads.

How is it pretentious? I didn't claim to have
all the answers. I simply opened up a dialogue and put forth my
interpretations. If you disagree you are free to put forth your interpretations to see if we can root out any true, official meaning.

Same with ME. The real exploring was the uncharted worlds but even then they where not that fun and kinda borining.  Lets look at Therum,Feros, Virmire, Illos and the final mission. That is linear. We have choices way but it's still linear. Noveria had diffrent paths but majority of the missions where linear. In ME2 all missions wherel inear but this time the level designs are better, there is alot of harder choices in ME2 and each area was unuqe. Overlord added exploring again. Lava frogger sucked, but the hub world was amazing and thats how the uncharted worlds should have looked like in ME, detailed and nice. In DAO you can't go anywhere. Will it be linear like ME and mE2? I don't know but if it is that means the level designs will be great and the choices will be better.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:34 .

[Aratham Darksight]

Wasn't it attempts to "decipher dev-speak" that got us all the angry, disappointed people who were convinced that DA2 would be a feature-length Morrigan romance?

[Mystranna Kelteel]

A lot of you are simply repeating what the article said. I did read the article, so you don't have to tell me that Laidlaw meant "distinguishable classes" when he brought up lithe super-ninjas. I simply took my analysis a step further and asked if that also meant changing the game's combat "tone" or if he was (hopefully) engaging in hyperbole. Lithe super-ninja Spartans are not what I want to actually see (or even see emulated).

I'm putting forth the ideas I have potential issues with. They may be unfounded or they may be spot on. Granted, we aren't acting on a lot of information, hence the open dialogue.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:40 .

[Mike2640]

Ah, the sweet smell of a very good thread. I agree completely and find it very convenient to have someone that's all ready sifted through the PR and pointed out some pretty glaring fallacies.

And their explanation that DA was paid for by nostalgia doesn't fly with me since I didn't play Baldur's Gate until after Mass Effect (And even then I found it to be more like KOTOR).

[Ecael]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Alrite, let's play:
Decipher the Double-talk!!

Round 1! Don't fix what isn't broken!
In the recent GameInformer article, Greg Zeschuk says that you shouldn't try to fix what's not broken. Why, then, is DA2 such a drastic departure? The article goes on and on about how successful DAO was, and how that proved that fans still like the old-style RPG format. So, again, if you don't want to fix what isn't broken, why are you setting out to do just that? This doesn't make any sense. People liked DAO. BioWare supposedly liked DAO, so why does it seem like I'm going to be playing Mass Effect?

Or maybe Dragon Age 2 isn't the drastic departure you think it is?

Round 2! Nostalgia gaming.
This can be aimed at BioWare or Joe Juba, though I assume Joe is parroting BioWare's sentiment in order to write an accurate article. Anyways, nostalgia can't hold up a series? Okay, DAO was a tribute to Baldur's Gate. So? People liked it and it sold well. Saying that nostalgia can't hold up the DA series, so it must be radically changed, is completely senseless. Why can't DA2 simply be a follow-up tribute to Dragon Age: Origins and maintain its style? What are you trying to say about today's gaming market by insisting that DA2 must be changed from DAO because DAO was too "nostalgic"? And what the hell is meant by "aging design"? All games have "aging designs", but the thing is that age of design does not alter a game's fun-factor. This whole concept evokes a rather hefty "lolwut".

"Nostalgic" seems to mean that people are wanting the same exact game and then complaining when even the most minor details are changed for the sequel.

Round 3! 'A Story in Pieces'
Yeah, this whole mini-article was rather strange. It basically says that the game is told in a narrative style by certain characters and implies that Hawke will be warping around the world and timeline. What's troubling is that Mike Laidlaw repeatedly says that this method allows the focus of the game to be centered around the "action" and "skip the interstitial between key action moments..." Yeah, this is basically saying the game will be broken up into a series of remarkably linear "levels", isn't it? At best it sounds like we can hope for a ME2-style of exploration, which is pretty much trash. Sounds like we won't be able to properly explore places at our leisure because we'll be forced into specific areas to suit the narration.

...Dragon Age: Origins wasn't broken up into levels? Do you not remember the number of loading screens found in Dragon Age?

And where was the exploration in Dragon Age: Origins, anyway?

Round 4! LITHE SUPER-NINJA SPARTANS!!!
Apparently combat is being reworked rather thoroughly, or at the very least "redesigned". Mike Laidlaw says he wants the classes to play like "unstoppable juggernaut, a lithe super-ninja, or field artillery."
respectively to warriors, rogues, and mages. And we've all read the "fight like a Spartan!" tagline on the main site. So, I'm hoping those are hyperbole because that sounds dreadful for an RPG. He also goes on about wanting players to get in enemies' faces and cut heads off and making everything feel faster. That also sounds a little extreme. They say we can still play tactically, or "like a general", but is this going to be some stylized, watered-down action game or something?

...Or it could mean the game engine zooms in while you're fighting. The game could retain the same combat and tactics system, but now it'll feel like you're playing an MMORPG with companions who are actually interesting most of the time.

Round 5! Depth vs. Breadth
This one's straight-forward. They're saying the focus on DA2's combat skills will be on "depth" and not "breadth". Yeah, that's just fancy-speak for saying that we'll have fewer combat abilities. Granted this is countered by them claiming that we will be able to alter or improve our abilities as we go. The example given is the fireball, with claims that it will let you tailor this spell to the way you want it to be. Now, as a realist who has played many games, this sounds like a puffed-up way of saying that you're going to offer spell evolution at fixed points, such as "Reach level 5: Choose if you want your fireball to have a wider AOE or cause more damage!". That doesn't change the spell or gameplay in any specific way. Maybe I'm wrong, but, hey, I'm only being realistic. I don't see this "depth" they're claiming to be very deep.

As opposed to... "Put the next point in to the fireball line, and always get a fireball with a ridiculously wide AoE!"?

Round 6! Sexier Visuals!!!
We've all seen the new art style for DA2. Now, it is claimed that the goal is for people to be able to see a screenshot of DA2 and know right away that what they're looking at is, in fact, DA2. They don't want it to be confused with another fantasy IP like LOTR. Well, you've got that, BioWare, so congrats! The darkspawn grunts look horrid, and I would never dream that they were part of Tolkien's IP. That's personal opinion, though. The real issue here is that claim that these visuals are "sexier" and "bloodier" and more properly convey the essence of DA2. WTF does that mean? XD Seriously, I'm at a genuine loss for this one.

Who cares about graphics? It's the least important part of an RPG.

Round 7! Evolution Via Theft!
You want to evolve your games? A good idea is to make them each unique in their own ways by capitalizing on what makes different. Your choice here seems to be "steal things from other popular games we've made bcause they were popular and we can make them work in this time frame before release!" Yeah, we've all heard the jokes that this game is really Dragon Effect 2. And it's true. Much has been borrowed from Mass Effect here, be it the really crappy generic white-dude marketing icon, the dialogue wheel, the voiced PC, etc. I find it odd that you call this an "evolution" of Dragon Age when its really a ripoff of another game you've put out yourselves. It hasn't evolved; it's simply been altered almost entirely into something else.

http://www.something...ge-reaction.php

Clearly, BioWare couldn't have possibly come up with these ideas themselves or even replicated an idea from another game... I mean, it's not like they're gamers themselves or anything!

Final Round!! HeHawke Strikes Confusion!
I'm only adding this for my own sake, and because this has been going on for 4-5 years now. HeHawke is not a good icon. You've claimed already that sticking to a default icon for advertising is going to "avoid confusion", but that's not the case. This entire article uses the pronoun "he" when referring to Hawke, and the mini-article about customizing Hawke doesn't even mention the gender option. It only says that you can customize appearance and class, which is very confusing when coupled with the exclusive use of the male pronoun. There is only one place where a female Hawke is even alluded to, and that's underneath one of the pictures in a tiny segregated blurb that simply claims that BioWare says you can choose gender. Seriously, BioWare, include some recognition for a female Hawke on your website, in a screenshot, or something. I don't care if Hawke is on the box and jimmied into all the trailers for laziness's sake, but, for the love crikey acknowledge female Hawke's existence somehow!

I'm all for getting more prominent female protagonists in advertising, but the fact that the option is there to play a female character is already good enough.

[Rubbish Hero]

Depth VS breadth just sounds like code to make it more manageable on  consoles (which is the lead platform). Expect 5 skills with simple  leveling perks like Mass Effect, for maximum control pad efficiency.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:45 .

[kraidy1117]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

A lot of you are simply repeating what the article said. I did read the article, so you don't have to tell me that Laidlaw meant "distinguishable classes" when he brought up lithe super-ninjas. I simply took my analysis a step further and asked if that also meant changing the game's combat "tone" or if he was (hopefully) engaging in hyperbole. Lithe super-ninja Spartans are not what I want to actually see (or even see emulated).

I'm putting forth the ideas I have potential issues with. They may be unfounded or they may be spot on. Granted, we aren't acting on a lot of information, hence the open dialogue.

I can see your concerns, but Ihave always been open to change. Maybe I am just a dumb Bioware fan, I don't know.

[Brockololly]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Depth VS breadth just sounds like code to make it more manageable on  consoles (which is the lead platform). Expect 5 skills with simple  leveling perks like Mass Effect, for maximum control pad efficiency.

Yup- I won't be surprised if its very similar to ME2's system of only having a couple abilities all kind of mushed together. Then when you level up you just a get more damage/larger AOE/longer duration of the spell/ability.

[Greenface21]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

A lot of you are simply repeating what the article said. I did read the article, so you don't have to tell me that Laidlaw meant "distinguishable classes" when he brought up lithe super-ninjas. I simply took my analysis a step further and asked if that also meant changing the game's combat "tone" or if he was (hopefully) engaging in hyperbole. Lithe super-ninja Spartans are not what I want to actually see (or even see emulated).

I'm putting forth the ideas I have potential issues with. They may be unfounded or they may be spot on. Granted, we aren't acting on a lot of information, hence the open dialogue.

I am sorry I assumed the use of his hyperbole was a given and took your criticisim of the actual game mechanic as the focus of your argument.  On that note even DAO was stylized and very spartan with the excessive gore and blood. From the screen shots it looks like they are taking it a little further by keeping the dismembered parts on screen instead of making them disappear.

I take spartan to mean similar to the movie 300  - fyi.

I guess to sum it up they are just taking what was already there and adding a little more.

Modifié par Greenface21, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:53 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Ecael wrote...
...Dragon Age: Origins wasn't broken up into levels? Do you not remember the number of loading screens found in Dragon Age?

And where was the exploration in Dragon Age: Origins, anyway?

I already covered this, but I'll gladly cover it again in more detail.

Take Mass Effect 2 for my first set up. ME2 is linear. If you start the Mordin recruitment mission you must finish that mission before you can go to another unless you reload an earlier save and start another mission instead.

That's not the case in DAO. Yes, as I already said, DAO does have linearity to a point, but it's not the same kind of linearity as ME2 has. I can go into the Brecilian Forest, play through it long enough to get the Elven Armor and then leave and never return to said mission until it's the only thing left to do. If I was playing ME2 I would have been forced into finishing that mission before I could go elsewhere. It's about options. You may not want to indulge in these options, other people might.

My worry about DA2's linearity stems from the facts that A) it will be "narrated so as to allow the game to skip to the key action moments", and it will span a 10 year period.

Scenario A I've already explained. "skipping to the action" sounds like ME2, where the game will be a series of deadbolt linear "levels" that you're forced to play through before you can move on as opposed to an open world.

Scenario B worries me because having a ten year story-span is a rather convenient way of blocking off certain areas as you go. I doubt BioWare will allow you to time travel to backtrack and look for missed items, for example.

And the worry is rooted more in the extent of the linearity and not the "linearity" by itself. I know DAO had the same kind of thing, though only on rare occasions, where you can't return to certain areas (such as certain origin areas or Ostagar). Ya follow?

[SDNcN]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

A lot of you are simply repeating what the article said. I did read the article, so you don't have to tell me that Laidlaw meant "distinguishable classes" when he brought up lithe super-ninjas. I simply took my analysis a step further and asked if that also meant changing the game's combat "tone" or if he was (hopefully) engaging in hyperbole. Lithe super-ninja Spartans are not what I want to actually see (or even see emulated).

I'm putting forth the ideas I have potential issues with. They may be unfounded or they may be spot on. Granted, we aren't acting on a lot of information, hence the open dialogue.

So you're purposely taking information out of context and engaging in hyperboles yourself in order to convey and start a conversation about what could potentially happen to DA:2 based on scant information and emotional knee-jerk reactions? Great plan.

[wrexingcrew]

I have a lot of confidence in the Dragon Age team. I'm excited to see what they do with the sequel.



But blithely dismissing Mystranna's concerns isn't doing anyone, including BioWare, any favors. The issues she's raised are entirely legitimate, based on what we know so far. If we get subsequent information that suggests she (or any of us) had it wrong all along, that's fine. Better to submit these concerns now than raise hell after the game's released. So long as criticism is submitted intelligently and respectfully (and Mystranna certainly has done that), I don't understand the "up in arms" approach from the slavish devotees.

[kraidy1117]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Ecael wrote...
...Dragon Age: Origins wasn't broken up into levels? Do you not remember the number of loading screens found in Dragon Age?

And where was the exploration in Dragon Age: Origins, anyway?

I already covered this, but I'll gladly cover it again in more detail.

Take Mass Effect 2 for my first set up. ME2 is linear. If you start the Mordin recruitment mission you must finish that mission before you can go to another unless you reload an earlier save and start another mission instead.

That's not the case in DAO. Yes, as I already said, DAO does have linearity to a point, but it's not the same kind of linearity as ME2 has. I can go into the Brecilian Forest, play through it long enough to get the Elven Armor and then leave and never return to said mission until it's the only thing left to do. If I was playing ME2 I would have been forced into finishing that mission before I could go elsewhere. It's about options. You may not want to indulge in these options, other people might.

My worry about DA2's linearity stems from the facts that A) it will be "narrated so as to allow the game to skip to the key action moments", and it will span a 10 year period.

Scenario A I've already explained. "skipping to the action" sounds like ME2, where the game will be a series of deadbolt linear "levels" that you're forced to play through before you can move on as opposed to an open world.

Scenario B worries me because having a ten year story-span is a rather convenient way of blocking off certain areas as you go. I doubt BioWare will allow you to time travel to backtrack and look for missed items, for example.

And the worry is rooted more in the extent of the linearity and not the "linearity" by itself. I know DAO had the same kind of thing, though only on rare occasions, where you can't return to certain areas (such as certain origin areas or Ostagar). Ya follow?

I do, but this is a diffrent story and being narrated. Would you rather take non-linear stuff or see your choices finnly matter? None of your choices in DAO really matterd. IF the game is going to be linear but our choices matter, would you rather have that? Something to think about.

I will just go in a corner and get my bioware pom poms.....

Modifié par kraidy1117, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:55 .