76 réponses à ce sujet

[AllThatJazz]

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

DanteCousland wrote...


In Origins, party members would abandon the
Warden if he made decisions they did not like, resulting in players not
using certain party members even if they were the best ones to use for a
quest. This "meta-game" is gone in Dragon Age II. If a character
disagrees with the player's actions, they may still complain. However,
the player can now be openly hostile to party members and still unlock
combat bonuses, previously only available when the player established
positive relationships. [/list]

I missed this point, earlier.

Well, not like so much this. I mean, if one character really, really hate me I can't imagine why should he still remain with me, especially considering the timelinedeveloping in a decade.
I read that some of our decisions may still result in some of our companions leaving the party, and that is good. But I hope that somehow if someone really hate me won't stay with me for the whole ten years campaign, and that he find some way for leaving me alone of turn against me (Zevran, for example, could attack the player if he hadn't a high approval)...
Oh, and I hope I can decide to send away one companion every time I want, just like in Origins, or decide to take or not to take with me some characters, as I could do in the first Dragon Age with almost everyone (I could let Zevran join me or kill him or let him just go, I could ignore Sten and leave him to rot in his cell, I could killed Wynne, I could refuse Leliana's help...).

It doesn't really say that they won't leave you. I just felt it meant that even if a character does not like you, you still get some benefits...which is interesting, imo.

I know, it doesn't say that all the things I wrote about won't be present anymore.
I just wrote that I'd like these features to remain in DA2, and maybe even made in a better way.

Sounds a little bit like Alpha Protocol. No companions in that game, but you got different bonuses from your handler depending on whether they liked/disliked you and how strong their feelings were. It worked fine, I thought. It sounds like quite an interesting change in dynamic from 'if a party member doesn't like you, they will either leave, or you will have to kill them'. And if the option to kill them anyway is still there, well, so much the better 

[Gambient]

Arttis wrote...

Sounds good.

[Gambient]

Arttis wrote...

Sounds good.

[Khavos]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

"Consequences of decisions will be experienced much sooner because the game encompasses a larger span of time. If you save a city, it will be there later in the narrative; if the city is destroyed, the player can see how that affects the region."

I really like this one. Especially if some consquences afftect coming gameply choices heavily.

Man, I must really be in the minority on this one, as everyone seems to be praising this system.  For an RPG, I like to get in the world and stay in the world.  This narrative system basically sounds like Modern Warfare 2, where you're hopping around from location to location with a narrative cutscene in between to explain why.  Only now you're time traveling as well.

You won't be learning about the world and the plot through interaction with other characters, you'll be having some dwarf drone on about it during what are essentially really long loading screens, and then you'll be dropped into the hack 'n slash action, only to be pulled out whenever you've made the run across the rooftops of Rio to the chopper finished the quest.

[Koffeegirl]

I like the idea of specializing with certain spells. On my first playthrough I wanted to be a fire mage so I maxed out the fire spells.....then realizing that cone of cold was so much better I respecced in awakening.
In DA2, it looks like I could improve spells I like.

Modifié par Koffeegirl, 17 juillet 2010 - 08:56 .

[Stefanocrpg_rev91]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

DanteCousland wrote...


In Origins, party members would abandon the
Warden if he made decisions they did not like, resulting in players not
using certain party members even if they were the best ones to use for a
quest. This "meta-game" is gone in Dragon Age II. If a character
disagrees with the player's actions, they may still complain. However,
the player can now be openly hostile to party members and still unlock
combat bonuses, previously only available when the player established
positive relationships. [/list]

I missed this point, earlier.

Well, not like so much this. I mean, if one character really, really hate me I can't imagine why should he still remain with me, especially considering the timelinedeveloping in a decade.
I read that some of our decisions may still result in some of our companions leaving the party, and that is good. But I hope that somehow if someone really hate me won't stay with me for the whole ten years campaign, and that he find some way for leaving me alone of turn against me (Zevran, for example, could attack the player if he hadn't a high approval)...
Oh, and I hope I can decide to send away one companion every time I want, just like in Origins, or decide to take or not to take with me some characters, as I could do in the first Dragon Age with almost everyone (I could let Zevran join me or kill him or let him just go, I could ignore Sten and leave him to rot in his cell, I could killed Wynne, I could refuse Leliana's help...).

It doesn't really say that they won't leave you. I just felt it meant that even if a character does not like you, you still get some benefits...which is interesting, imo.

I know, it doesn't say that all the things I wrote about won't be present anymore.
I just wrote that I'd like these features to remain in DA2, and maybe even made in a better way.

Sounds a little bit like Alpha Protocol. No companions in that game, but you got different bonuses from your handler depending on whether they liked/disliked you and how strong their feelings were. It worked fine, I thought. It sounds like quite an interesting change in dynamic from 'if a party member doesn't like you, they will either leave, or you will have to kill them'. And if the option to kill them anyway is still there, well, so much the better 

Yes, if they keep the possibilities of Origins where you could do what you wanted with everyone of your companions (except Alistair because he was the only other Grey Warden in Ferelden, but you could also cast out him from your party or make him killed at the end) and just added the new options it could be very, very interesting.

[DR4GNballz]

THATS COOL! just imagine in the beginning of DA2. ur controling a young HAWKE in lothering. U run into STEN, u know talking to him in his cell b4 the WARDEN reached lothering. Then u go into the pub and those pesky guards of LOGAIN try to interogate u, but....ahhhh the beutiful LEILIANA interupts and saves u from a beating, then u start to TEAS her.......(cough)...ummm....Next, u rent a room, u possibly took the last room available, u go to sleep. U wake up and the entir bar is a mess, (outcome the the GW fight with the guards. UR curious, but the pub mangaer tells u" some reckless warden just beat the crap outta those basted guards, hahhaa!!! thank the MAKER!."

END SCENE....BADASS!!!

[Johnson45]

Definitely sounds good, glad to hear about the changes in combat for the consoles, since I think they're right, the PC combat didn't fit and gel with the gamepad. Hopefully they'll get the pacing right and the voice acting is done well (no offence Mark Meer, but f**k off), then day one.

[seanu]

Fewer abilities overall, but more ways to customize them as the player
prefers.

this is what i was afraid of. fewer skill trees and lesser of an RPG.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

seanu wrote...

Fewer abilities overall, but more ways to customize them as the player
prefers.

this is what i was afraid of. fewer skill trees and lesser of an RPG.

I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that fewer skill trees in itself detracts from the role-playing elements in a CRPG?

[Khavos]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that fewer skill trees in itself detracts from the role-playing elements in a CRPG?

The way Bioware "streamlines" its skill trees?  Absolutely.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Khavos wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that fewer skill trees in itself detracts from the role-playing elements in a CRPG?

The way Bioware "streamlines" its skill trees?  Absolutely.

Aren't skill trees typically about tactical options in combat, especially in CRPG's?  I have a lot more PnP roleplaying in my background than CRPG's.  Usually tactical options aren't seen as integral to the role-playing elements.  In fact, many of the more narration-based games are moving toward rules-lite systems.

[Fishy]

*less generic*

:happy:

[Hulk Hsieh]

Khavos wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that fewer skill trees in itself detracts from the role-playing elements in a CRPG?

The way Bioware "streamlines" its skill trees?  Absolutely.

I think they found that their experiment using skills to define characters failed.

The fact that warrior and rogue going dual-wielding plays like is the proof.
And in the end, half of the 12 skills in dual-wield tree aren't as important as the fact that daggers are fast by themselves. 

An ordinary character in D&D 3E doesn't get as many as "skills" as a DA character, but I feel 3E characters are more defined and customizable.

[Bryy_Miller]

I don't think people are realistically thinking about the logistics of having 50k spells versus a more streamlined, upgradable version.

[Khavos]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I don't think people are realistically thinking about the logistics of having 50k spells versus a more streamlined, upgradable version.

DA:O had 50,000 spells?  Man, I must've missed that.

Of course, if we ignore your wild hyperbole and look at what DA:O actually did have, we'd find a system where skills actually mattered and different builds were possible.  Compare that with the "streamlined, upgradeable" system we saw in ME2, and that we'll be seeing in DA2, where you have very little choice in terms of where your points went, and even then it simply doesn't matter.  The difference between a dual-wield and sword-and-board warrior is noticeable; the difference between an Incendiary Ammo and Disruptor Ammo soldier isn't.   

[Vicious]

Compare that with the "streamlined, upgradeable" system we saw in ME2, and that we'll be seeing in DA2,

You have no idea what you will see in DA2.

wild hyperbole

That's basically all your ignorant post is.

[Bryy_Miller]

Khavos wrote...

 Compare that with the "streamlined, upgradeable" system we saw in ME2

Wait, what?

[Tyreal42a]

My feelings range from optimistic to excited about everything mentioned there except the comments about the art style. I loved the gritty, realistic, dark fantasy look of the original, even if the grahpics weren't amazing from a technical perspective. Ah well. Everything else sounds promising.

[AlanC9]

They do say fewer abilities, but the abilities themselves will be customizable:

Mark Darrah: "What we want to do is give the player more depth of choice. So you might really like the fireball. We're going to let you customize and enhance the fireball itself, so by the end of the game you're actually tailoring that spell to the way you want it to be."



Fewer abilities overall, but more ways to customize them as the player prefers.

No big deal for me. There are plenty of DA abilities that aren't useful, and a fair number of spells that are only worthwhile when your good stuff is in cooldown.

[Kalfear]

Khavos wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I don't think people are realistically thinking about the logistics of having 50k spells versus a more streamlined, upgradable version.

DA:O had 50,000 spells?  Man, I must've missed that.

Of course, if we ignore your wild hyperbole and look at what DA:O actually did have, we'd find a system where skills actually mattered and different builds were possible.  Compare that with the "streamlined, upgradeable" system we saw in ME2, and that we'll be seeing in DA2, where you have very little choice in terms of where your points went, and even then it simply doesn't matter.  The difference between a dual-wield and sword-and-board warrior is noticeable; the difference between an Incendiary Ammo and Disruptor Ammo soldier isn't.   

This is what worries me

From what they have said (and seeing how they "streamlined" ME2) I get this mental image of there being a FOTM mage/warrior build.
Everyone one will be the same as there will be that one build thats just better then everyone else!

In DA:O, the large amount of skills and spells (I also missed the 50k numbers but ill look again) let you have different builds. Ive had 7 different mage builds for Morrigan. About the only thing that remains the same is heal, everything else changes every game!

My warrior has been 2 handed, duel weild, sword and sheild, and even a few times Ive focused on the specialties rather then the weapon skills!

I just envision all that option and choices being gone in DA2 because lets face it, it was gone in ME2, and thats the only "streamlining" we have to go on.

[Khavos]

Vicious wrote...

You have no idea what you will see in DA2.

Of course I do.  They're telling us exactly what they told us with ME2, and I mean right down to the same marketing patter.

That's basically all your ignorant post is.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that I'm working within what they've actually said and what they've actually done, rather than fueling my engines with wild-eyed optimism. 

[Khavos]

Kalfear wrote...

From what they have said (and seeing how they "streamlined" ME2) I get this mental image of there being a FOTM mage/warrior build.

No.  There won't be a FOTM build, there'll just be a build, singular.  Going down one tree over another makes so little difference in ME2-style skill setups that it simply doesn't matter, which I suppose is okay because you have so ridiculously few choices to begin with.

[biomag]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Khavos wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I'm not sure I understand you.  Are you saying that fewer skill trees in itself detracts from the role-playing elements in a CRPG?

The way Bioware "streamlines" its skill trees?  Absolutely.

Aren't skill trees typically about tactical options in combat, especially in CRPG's?  I have a lot more PnP roleplaying in my background than CRPG's.  Usually tactical options aren't seen as integral to the role-playing elements.  In fact, many of the more narration-based games are moving toward rules-lite systems.

Welcome to the BioWare boards, where real RPGs are all about combat skills/talents and a big fat inventory. That's why ME 2 sucks and BG 2 rocks.



...

[UberDuber]

I mean the least they could give us would be like a glimpse of our warden?