94 réponses à ce sujet

[TheSpoonAge]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

inventory was too hard for the children to understand

putting inventory in DAO2 = frustrated children = Bioware loses their largest demographic customer group = no profit

Just as a sidenote ... this is NOT DAO2  , its DA 2.

[errant_knight]

Therumancer wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

well i guess the OP is the type of person Biowares trying to target with the changes to DA

 Well, no change is going to be universally reviled, and there are plenty of people who love twitch based games, and would like to see the industry produce nothing else. In absolute terms they outnumber RPG gamers as well.

 I've written a lot on this subject recently, the big issue here seems to be that the core of the fan base for "Dragon Age" are RPG players. "Dragon Age" was a surprising success because tons of RPG gamers were dying to see a game heavily based around stats and which handled the fantasy stereotypes fairly well. What was once a common genere for video gaming having been overshadowed in an era where everything is  progressively  twitch and action based. Developers being somewhat distanced from gaming by their very position, probably didn't really grasp that this stuff wasn't out there like it used to be, simply assuming it was around like it always had been before. 

 I think a lot of the issues come down to the corperate minds at Bioware looking at the statistics and basically saying that by the numbers simplicity and action are good and will result in the biggest possible profit. This missing the point that "Dragon Age" succeeded like it did by bringing in a generally untapped niche market which it had more or less to itself at this quality level, compared to the diluted pool of "twitch games" which are being yanked every which way. 

 What is being said about "Dragon Age 2" is pretty much anathema to RPG gamers who liked "Origins" for pretty much being the opposite of almost everything that has been stated about the sequel, hence the reaction. This does not mean that there aren't going to be people who are going to support, and even embrace such changes, despite them coming at the expense of the audience that made the game successful to begin with. 

 In the end what we're looking at here is a test of Bioware's loyalty to it's fans. Is Bioware willing to continue on the same path of "Origins" and make a decent profit, or with the basic success are they willing to sell it out entirely in order to potentially draw in an even bigger crowd of gamers, hoping that twitch gamers put down their copies of "Modern Warfare 2" for a while and twitch along with a sword instead for a while with "Dragon Age 2".

 Of course this is simply going by the example set by Bioware itself with "Mass Effect 2" and other RPG series over time, where "simplification" typically means "removal or minimalization of stats for more twitch resolution". I look at things like the Marvel "action RPGs" which got simpler and more arcade like with every installment since the original "X-men Legends" up until he most recent "Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2" which was pretty much a straight brawler where you didn't even have to make any serious desicians on how to build each character or what to specialize them in.

 The bottom line is that the established "Dragon Age" fan base has read what Bioware has said, the reaction is by and large negative. The big question is whether Bioware is willing to change things, or if they are pretty much going to say "Meh, who cares what the fans think, don't they know WE are the ones who dictate what they like. the money bag carrying sheep will buy whatever we decide to produce and be happy with it..." and continue down this path. 

 I'm not happy with the way things look, but at the same time I've been here before. In general I don't think I've ever seen a company alter plans this radically based on feedback (requested or otherwise). Sometimes the fans are wrong and wind up liking something anyway, but more often than not when things are this loud you wind up seeing franchises go down in flames.... while some people involved in an early stage of seeing the problem watch in horror like a slow motion train wreck is taking place in front of them, some trying to help but being unable to halt the intertia.

 Ah well, I've written a lot of posts on the subject today, all very long. I like Bioware and wouldn't bother to post if I didn't care. I come accross a bit strong, and don't want people to get too insulted, or think I'm a troll or anything while I'm trying to be constructive even if what I'm saying is negative in tone.

Good post. That pretty much sums it up. I think it's very unlikely that dissatisfaction will change anything, even if it were universal, but when I'm this dismayed, when I feel like I've been totally led on then pushed aside, well, I'm going to say something. Otherwise it looks like no one cares. I'm just so utterly disheartened and disappointed. I really believed that they believed in their wonderful game, and couldn't feel more let down.

Modifié par errant_knight, 19 juillet 2010 - 04:20 .

[AT_Field]

i'm sorry but are there actually people in this thread defending the inventory from mass effect 1? it was absolutely awful and there is no excuse for it. for heavens sake the items didn't even stack and were nigh impossible to organize.

[Jallard]

errant_knight wrote...

Therumancer wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

well i guess the OP is the type of person Biowares trying to target with the changes to DA

 Well, no change is going to be universally reviled, and there are plenty of people who love twitch based games, and would like to see the industry produce nothing else. In absolute terms they outnumber RPG gamers as well.

 I've written a lot on this subject recently, the big issue here seems to be that the core of the fan base for "Dragon Age" are RPG players. "Dragon Age" was a surprising success because tons of RPG gamers were dying to see a game heavily based around stats and which handled the fantasy stereotypes fairly well. What was once a common genere for video gaming having been overshadowed in an era where everything is  progressively  twitch and action based. Developers being somewhat distanced from gaming by their very position, probably didn't really grasp that this stuff wasn't out there like it used to be, simply assuming it was around like it always had been before. 

 I think a lot of the issues come down to the corperate minds at Bioware looking at the statistics and basically saying that by the numbers simplicity and action are good and will result in the biggest possible profit. This missing the point that "Dragon Age" succeeded like it did by bringing in a generally untapped niche market which it had more or less to itself at this quality level, compared to the diluted pool of "twitch games" which are being yanked every which way. 

 What is being said about "Dragon Age 2" is pretty much anathema to RPG gamers who liked "Origins" for pretty much being the opposite of almost everything that has been stated about the sequel, hence the reaction. This does not mean that there aren't going to be people who are going to support, and even embrace such changes, despite them coming at the expense of the audience that made the game successful to begin with. 

 In the end what we're looking at here is a test of Bioware's loyalty to it's fans. Is Bioware willing to continue on the same path of "Origins" and make a decent profit, or with the basic success are they willing to sell it out entirely in order to potentially draw in an even bigger crowd of gamers, hoping that twitch gamers put down their copies of "Modern Warfare 2" for a while and twitch along with a sword instead for a while with "Dragon Age 2".

 Of course this is simply going by the example set by Bioware itself with "Mass Effect 2" and other RPG series over time, where "simplification" typically means "removal or minimalization of stats for more twitch resolution". I look at things like the Marvel "action RPGs" which got simpler and more arcade like with every installment since the original "X-men Legends" up until he most recent "Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2" which was pretty much a straight brawler where you didn't even have to make any serious desicians on how to build each character or what to specialize them in.

 The bottom line is that the established "Dragon Age" fan base has read what Bioware has said, the reaction is by and large negative. The big question is whether Bioware is willing to change things, or if they are pretty much going to say "Meh, who cares what the fans think, don't they know WE are the ones who dictate what they like. the money bag carrying sheep will buy whatever we decide to produce and be happy with it..." and continue down this path. 

 I'm not happy with the way things look, but at the same time I've been here before. In general I don't think I've ever seen a company alter plans this radically based on feedback (requested or otherwise). Sometimes the fans are wrong and wind up liking something anyway, but more often than not when things are this loud you wind up seeing franchises go down in flames.... while some people involved in an early stage of seeing the problem watch in horror like a slow motion train wreck is taking place in front of them, some trying to help but being unable to halt the intertia.

 Ah well, I've written a lot of posts on the subject today, all very long. I like Bioware and wouldn't bother to post if I didn't care. I come accross a bit strong, and don't want people to get too insulted, or think I'm a troll or anything while I'm trying to be constructive even if what I'm saying is negative in tone.

Good post. That pretty much sums it up. I think it's very unlikely that dissatisfaction will change anything, even if it were universal, but when I'm this dismayed, when I feel like I've been totally led on then pushed aside, well, I'm going to say something. Otherwise it looks like no one cares. I'm just so utterly disheartened and disappointed. I really believed that they believed in their wonderful game, and couldn't feel more let down.

Well stated and much appreciated. As dismayed as I am with the news and the path in which Bioware seems to be taking Dragon Age, I still pre-ordered DA2. I just hope I don't waste my money.  Prehaps I may be able to sell the PC version on Craigs list, if the game is a flop.

[errant_knight]

Jallard wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Therumancer wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

well i guess the OP is the type of person Biowares trying to target with the changes to DA

 Well, no change is going to be universally reviled, and there are plenty of people who love twitch based games, and would like to see the industry produce nothing else. In absolute terms they outnumber RPG gamers as well.

 I've written a lot on this subject recently, the big issue here seems to be that the core of the fan base for "Dragon Age" are RPG players. "Dragon Age" was a surprising success because tons of RPG gamers were dying to see a game heavily based around stats and which handled the fantasy stereotypes fairly well. What was once a common genere for video gaming having been overshadowed in an era where everything is  progressively  twitch and action based. Developers being somewhat distanced from gaming by their very position, probably didn't really grasp that this stuff wasn't out there like it used to be, simply assuming it was around like it always had been before. 

 I think a lot of the issues come down to the corperate minds at Bioware looking at the statistics and basically saying that by the numbers simplicity and action are good and will result in the biggest possible profit. This missing the point that "Dragon Age" succeeded like it did by bringing in a generally untapped niche market which it had more or less to itself at this quality level, compared to the diluted pool of "twitch games" which are being yanked every which way. 

 What is being said about "Dragon Age 2" is pretty much anathema to RPG gamers who liked "Origins" for pretty much being the opposite of almost everything that has been stated about the sequel, hence the reaction. This does not mean that there aren't going to be people who are going to support, and even embrace such changes, despite them coming at the expense of the audience that made the game successful to begin with. 

 In the end what we're looking at here is a test of Bioware's loyalty to it's fans. Is Bioware willing to continue on the same path of "Origins" and make a decent profit, or with the basic success are they willing to sell it out entirely in order to potentially draw in an even bigger crowd of gamers, hoping that twitch gamers put down their copies of "Modern Warfare 2" for a while and twitch along with a sword instead for a while with "Dragon Age 2".

 Of course this is simply going by the example set by Bioware itself with "Mass Effect 2" and other RPG series over time, where "simplification" typically means "removal or minimalization of stats for more twitch resolution". I look at things like the Marvel "action RPGs" which got simpler and more arcade like with every installment since the original "X-men Legends" up until he most recent "Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2" which was pretty much a straight brawler where you didn't even have to make any serious desicians on how to build each character or what to specialize them in.

 The bottom line is that the established "Dragon Age" fan base has read what Bioware has said, the reaction is by and large negative. The big question is whether Bioware is willing to change things, or if they are pretty much going to say "Meh, who cares what the fans think, don't they know WE are the ones who dictate what they like. the money bag carrying sheep will buy whatever we decide to produce and be happy with it..." and continue down this path. 

 I'm not happy with the way things look, but at the same time I've been here before. In general I don't think I've ever seen a company alter plans this radically based on feedback (requested or otherwise). Sometimes the fans are wrong and wind up liking something anyway, but more often than not when things are this loud you wind up seeing franchises go down in flames.... while some people involved in an early stage of seeing the problem watch in horror like a slow motion train wreck is taking place in front of them, some trying to help but being unable to halt the intertia.

 Ah well, I've written a lot of posts on the subject today, all very long. I like Bioware and wouldn't bother to post if I didn't care. I come accross a bit strong, and don't want people to get too insulted, or think I'm a troll or anything while I'm trying to be constructive even if what I'm saying is negative in tone.

Good post. That pretty much sums it up. I think it's very unlikely that dissatisfaction will change anything, even if it were universal, but when I'm this dismayed, when I feel like I've been totally led on then pushed aside, well, I'm going to say something. Otherwise it looks like no one cares. I'm just so utterly disheartened and disappointed. I really believed that they believed in their wonderful game, and couldn't feel more let down.

Well stated and much appreciated. As dismayed as I am with the news and the path in which Bioware seems to be taking Dragon Age, I still pre-ordered DA2. I just hope I don't waste my money.  Prehaps I may be able to sell the PC version on Craigs list, if the game is a flop.

Well, the story will be interesting and the characters will be fun, assuming we can still talk to them at will. The art may prove to be distracting, but it's not a gamebreaker. The real question is how much the voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel will get in the way of gameplay.

Really good and well cast actors could make a big difference, although there's still going to be the feeling weird feeling that you're two people--kind of like you and the protagonist as cojoined twins. It makes romance scenes...awkward. But a lot of that depends on the acting. The wheel...well, we'll just have to hope it's as different as they say. In any case, the story should be good.

[paranoid_marv]

AT_Field wrote...

i'm sorry but are there actually people in this thread defending the inventory from mass effect 1? it was absolutely awful and there is no excuse for it. for heavens sake the items didn't even stack and were nigh impossible to organize.

I think they're defending the concept, not the execution, and attacking what the change can mean for DA2.

Bioware's idea of improving the inventory system was completely scrapping it (instead of improving it) for something more shallow than what even a game like Bad Company 2 has. In ME2, the game hands you new weapons almost arbitrarily as the game progresses. That weapon is always better and so there's no reason to consider lower grade weapons because of play style. At least in the Bad Company 2, you can decide to favor a specific type of weapon (for example, I stick with bolt-action sniper rifles despite the fact that the game classifies them as a lower tier than some automatic sniper rifles) because of how it handles as opposed to just picking the one that does the most damage. Instead, there's just a linear increase in power with slight variations, which makes me wonder why the game even has weapon tiers in the first place. It's just one of many ways that Bioware has decided to implement more action oriented elements under the guise of RPG (meaning stat based), however, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't think anyone can deny that ME2 had much better gameplay than ME1, but the point I think people are trying to make is that DA should stand as a bastion for more traditional or "old school" RPGs and therefore should resist "streamlining" while still weeding out more archaic elements.

Modifié par paranoid_marv, 19 juillet 2010 - 04:43 .

[Jallard]

paranoid_marv wrote...

AT_Field wrote...

i'm sorry but are there actually people in this thread defending the inventory from mass effect 1? it was absolutely awful and there is no excuse for it. for heavens sake the items didn't even stack and were nigh impossible to organize.

I think they're defending the concept, not the execution, and attacking what the change can mean for DA2.

Bioware's idea of improving the inventory system was completely scrapping it (instead of improving it) for something more shallow than what even a game like Bad Company 2 has. In ME2, the game hands you new weapons almost arbitrarily as the game progresses. That weapon is always better and so there's no reason to consider lower grade weapons because of play style. At least in the Bad Company 2, you can decide to favor a specific type of weapon (for example, I stick with bolt-action sniper rifles despite the fact that the game classifies them as a lower tier than some automatic sniper rifles) because of how it handles as opposed to just picking the one that does the most damage. Instead, there's just a linear increase in power with slight variations, which makes me wonder why the game even has weapon tiers in the first place. It's just one of many ways that Bioware has decided to implement more action oriented elements under the guise of RPG (meaning stat based), however, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't think anyone can deny that ME2 had much better gameplay than ME1, but the point I think people are trying to make is that DA should stand as a bastion for more traditional or "old school" RPGs and therefore should resist "streamlining" while still weeding out more archaic elements.

I concur.

[Anathemic]

KappaOmicron wrote...

I would just like to say I am loving the path Dragon Age II is taking due to mainly them going into a Mass Effect style with how you interact in conversation cut-scenes and the fact that now our character has a voice, it will also allow us to have more emotion within the conversation between your companions and the other people we may meet in DA: II.

I honest am not bothered the slightest about being restricted to be a human because I personally prefered humans and since we now have a voice, it would be too costly to have multiple voice actors to voice different races, because let's face it, Dwarves don't really sound like humans and neither do Elves.

However to you all that are unhappy about you having to be a human, you have to understand it is for the best because it seriously opens up so much more emotion and interest within cut-scenes, just look at Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 for examples, Bioware really out-done themselves with how immerse the conversation were within those games and now that the fact is they are implementing it into DA: II is fantastic news.

I don't know about you guys, but for my first playthrough, I am going to be the default Hawke because that is exactly what I did with the Mass Effect games where I was the default John Shepard and instead of putting myself into the game, I put on the shoes of John Shepard and made the decisions what I thought he would do and then once I completed it I would then go to make my custom characters to create specific role plays with them, which is what I plan on doing with DA: II.

I only have three characters in Dragon Age: Origins because there were only three different paths I wanted to have for the next Dragon Age game.

I am interested in hearing what you all think on the path Dragon Age II is taking, but please don't hate on it because it has race restrictions now, just try to see the bigger picture on this.

Alright cool, I understand your opinion I respect ti, but it irritates me SO MUCH that optimist people (not all but a select few) insist on "This is the best, you have to understand this, your opinion doesn't matter". Really now, people are bashing on people (likes myself) for disagreeing with the new direction/featured implemented in DA2 transitioning from DA:O and call us "irrational" or "nerd-raging" when in this current circumstance I say we should really have sympathy when all we put up is this bull**** type of response we are getting.

KappaOmicron wrote...


This is not called Dragon Age: ORIGINS, it is called Dragon Age II so don't getcoy with me please.

Well errr Halo: Combat Evolved has err 'Combat Evolved' in Halo 2 and Halo 3 and I am a 100% sure in Halo: Reach, so because DA2 doesnt have 'Origins' because it doesn't have it in the title, why can Halo 2 have 'Combat Evolved' when it's not in the title...?

[Addai]

errant_knight wrote...

Well, the story will be interesting and the characters will be fun, assuming we can still talk to them at will. The art may prove to be distracting, but it's not a gamebreaker. The real question is how much the voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel will get in the way of gameplay.

Really good and well cast actors could make a big difference, although there's still going to be the feeling weird feeling that you're two people--kind of like you and the protagonist as cojoined twins. It makes romance scenes...awkward. But a lot of that depends on the acting. The wheel...well, we'll just have to hope it's as different as they say. In any case, the story should be good.

You know that I agree with this, but I also can't fathom the idea that people find they can get into a game more when it's full of cutscenes.  There were very few cutscenes in DAO where I was absorbed enough not to be impatient about wanting to get on with it.  The Ostagar battle is one, that was very well done but it was at a crucial turning point so the interruption was natural.

I played some of The Witcher tonight because I wanted to see remind myself of what this style is like.  I guess I have a short attention span, but in the gameplay portion (versus the beginning, cinematic set-up of the game), the constant break to cutscenes is annoying.  It's like... okay guys, I'm the player, come back to me now.  And Geralt is no more my character than any of the other NPCs.  I know that having to sit and watch "my character" in DA2 interact on his own is going to feel stilted and distancing.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:31 .

[errant_knight]

Addai67 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Well, the story will be interesting and the characters will be fun, assuming we can still talk to them at will. The art may prove to be distracting, but it's not a gamebreaker. The real question is how much the voiced protagonist and the dialogue wheel will get in the way of gameplay.

Really good and well cast actors could make a big difference, although there's still going to be the feeling weird feeling that you're two people--kind of like you and the protagonist as cojoined twins. It makes romance scenes...awkward. But a lot of that depends on the acting. The wheel...well, we'll just have to hope it's as different as they say. In any case, the story should be good.

You know that I agree with this, but I also can't fathom the idea that people find they can get into a game more when it's full of cutscenes.  There were very few cutscenes in DAO where I was absorbed enough not to be impatient about wanting to get on with it.  The Ostagar battle is one, that was very well done but it was at a crucial turning point so the interruption was natural.

I played some of The Witcher tonight because I wanted to see remind myself of what this style is like.  I guess I have a short attention span, but in the gameplay portion (versus the beginning, cinematic set-up of the game), the constant break to cutscenes is annoying.  It's like... okay guys, I'm the player, come back to me now.  And Geralt is no more my character than any of the other NPCs.  I know that having to sit and watch "my character" in DA2 interact on his own is going to feel stilted and distancing.

I'm holding out hope that the actors will be engaging enough to minimize the feeling. I know exactly what you mean, but a really good actor can bring you along with them. It's a heck of a lot more difficult when no one can see your face, but with good animation and good acting.... It might not be as bad as it could be.

[AlanC9]

paranoid_marv wrote...
I don't think anyone can deny that ME2 had much better gameplay than ME1, but the point I think people are trying to make is that DA should stand as a bastion for more traditional or "old school" RPGs and therefore should resist "streamlining" while still weeding out more archaic elements.

That's the thing, though. What counts as something archaic that should be weeded out, as opposed to an old-school element that should be retained? There's no objective answer here. If I had my way Bio would have thrown out inventory in KotOR rather than ME2, because in my PnP gaming community loot-based systems are considered obsolete and CRPGs ought to drop this nonsense and move into the 80s.

YMMV, obviously. And I'm not seriously advocating that Bio drop loot in DA2; it's obvious that a lot of you folks are attached to that sort of thing. I'm just saying that people can have good-faith answers to these questions that are simply irreconcilable.

[17thknight]

TheSpoonAge wrote...


Just as a sidenote ... this is NOT DAO2  , its DA 2.

Yeah. That's the problem.

[17thknight]

errant_knight wrote...

Therumancer wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

well i guess the OP is the type of person Biowares trying to target with the changes to DA

 Well, no change is going to be universally reviled, and there are plenty of people who love twitch based games, and would like to see the industry produce nothing else. In absolute terms they outnumber RPG gamers as well.

 I've written a lot on this subject recently, the big issue here seems to be that the core of the fan base for "Dragon Age" are RPG players. "Dragon Age" was a surprising success because tons of RPG gamers were dying to see a game heavily based around stats and which handled the fantasy stereotypes fairly well. What was once a common genere for video gaming having been overshadowed in an era where everything is  progressively  twitch and action based. Developers being somewhat distanced from gaming by their very position, probably didn't really grasp that this stuff wasn't out there like it used to be, simply assuming it was around like it always had been before. 

 I think a lot of the issues come down to the corperate minds at Bioware looking at the statistics and basically saying that by the numbers simplicity and action are good and will result in the biggest possible profit. This missing the point that "Dragon Age" succeeded like it did by bringing in a generally untapped niche market which it had more or less to itself at this quality level, compared to the diluted pool of "twitch games" which are being yanked every which way. 

 What is being said about "Dragon Age 2" is pretty much anathema to RPG gamers who liked "Origins" for pretty much being the opposite of almost everything that has been stated about the sequel, hence the reaction. This does not mean that there aren't going to be people who are going to support, and even embrace such changes, despite them coming at the expense of the audience that made the game successful to begin with. 

 In the end what we're looking at here is a test of Bioware's loyalty to it's fans. Is Bioware willing to continue on the same path of "Origins" and make a decent profit, or with the basic success are they willing to sell it out entirely in order to potentially draw in an even bigger crowd of gamers, hoping that twitch gamers put down their copies of "Modern Warfare 2" for a while and twitch along with a sword instead for a while with "Dragon Age 2".

 Of course this is simply going by the example set by Bioware itself with "Mass Effect 2" and other RPG series over time, where "simplification" typically means "removal or minimalization of stats for more twitch resolution". I look at things like the Marvel "action RPGs" which got simpler and more arcade like with every installment since the original "X-men Legends" up until he most recent "Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2" which was pretty much a straight brawler where you didn't even have to make any serious desicians on how to build each character or what to specialize them in.

 The bottom line is that the established "Dragon Age" fan base has read what Bioware has said, the reaction is by and large negative. The big question is whether Bioware is willing to change things, or if they are pretty much going to say "Meh, who cares what the fans think, don't they know WE are the ones who dictate what they like. the money bag carrying sheep will buy whatever we decide to produce and be happy with it..." and continue down this path. 

 I'm not happy with the way things look, but at the same time I've been here before. In general I don't think I've ever seen a company alter plans this radically based on feedback (requested or otherwise). Sometimes the fans are wrong and wind up liking something anyway, but more often than not when things are this loud you wind up seeing franchises go down in flames.... while some people involved in an early stage of seeing the problem watch in horror like a slow motion train wreck is taking place in front of them, some trying to help but being unable to halt the intertia.

 Ah well, I've written a lot of posts on the subject today, all very long. I like Bioware and wouldn't bother to post if I didn't care. I come accross a bit strong, and don't want people to get too insulted, or think I'm a troll or anything while I'm trying to be constructive even if what I'm saying is negative in tone.

Good post. That pretty much sums it up. I think it's very unlikely that dissatisfaction will change anything, even if it were universal, but when I'm this dismayed, when I feel like I've been totally led on then pushed aside, well, I'm going to say something. Otherwise it looks like no one cares. I'm just so utterly disheartened and disappointed. I really believed that they believed in their wonderful game, and couldn't feel more let down.

VERY WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!

Both of you.

Kudos.

[Wyndham711]

I don't mind them making most of the changes. This will be a new, different kind of experience. Of course I hope the more free-form PC and more diverse character creation options will return sometime in a future installment, but they don't need to be included in every game. With the improvements to the dialogue system (I hope Hawke will be much more predictable compared to Shepard) and hopefully extremely awesome VO, the end result can be something great.

I'm not too keen on the new art style nor the lacking graphics in general, but I hope that decision was made in order to lengthen and deepen the game in other areas. You can't have everything, after all. If the gameplay is very deep and rewarding, and the game lasts 100 hours, I could not care less whether the game matches to the competition graphically.

[paranoid_marv]

AlanC9 wrote...

paranoid_marv wrote...
I don't think anyone can deny that ME2 had much better gameplay than ME1, but the point I think people are trying to make is that DA should stand as a bastion for more traditional or "old school" RPGs and therefore should resist "streamlining" while still weeding out more archaic elements.

That's the thing, though. What counts as something archaic that should be weeded out, as opposed to an old-school element that should be retained? There's no objective answer here. If I had my way Bio would have thrown out inventory in KotOR rather than ME2, because in my PnP gaming community loot-based systems are considered obsolete and CRPGs ought to drop this nonsense and move into the 80s.

YMMV, obviously. And I'm not seriously advocating that Bio drop loot in DA2; it's obvious that a lot of you folks are attached to that sort of thing. I'm just saying that people can have good-faith answers to these questions that are simply irreconcilable.

What was the solution for your PnP group in regards to equipment?

There is a problem with loot-based systems in single player games and bringing up PnP games (although I'm not entirely familiar with them) provides a solid way of articulating that problem. That problem lies in the value of the item within and apart from the context of the game. The value of the item within the context of a single player game is determined by its usefulness as well as other in-game factors, whereas obtaining an item within a group of other people, whether in a PnP game or an MMORPG, can have a value outside of the game context as well. The item's value can directly relate to your value within a group, or it can simply be about bragging rights.

Unlike multi-player RPG's, it would be unacceptable for a boss in a single-player RPG to have a loot table in which one-of-a-kind items don't have a 100% drop rate. Thus, obtaining all items must be eventual because that is what is accepted. It's the same quandary that ME2 finds itself in, except in ME2's case the game just gives you the items as opposed to making you work for them. 

Ultimately, it's about finding a new way to give value to items in a single-player game, where the thrill of an unexpected drop is greatly diminished without the social context.

[AlanC9]

paranoid_marv wrote...

What was the solution for your PnP group in regards to equipment?

Depends on the system, really. If we were playing D&D we had to just suck it up and deal with it, since the system's kind of about that. SF games are usually pretty good about it.. Even if you give players early access to military-grade weapons there aren't too many situations where you can actually use them, and in those situations the opposition probably has the stuff too.

The item's value can directly relate to your value within a group

That was actually what brought us around to it. When the most important thing about a party member is his item loadout rather than the other stuff on his character sheet, that's an issue. When that significant something about him changes multiple times over the course of the campaign, there's a serious problem.

In the end the item treadmill is a Red Queen's race. You're upgrading your equipment as fast as you can in order to maintain parity with the other party members. It's not so much that ME1 had a bad loot system as that it had an unusually honest one. I suppose that goes for DA too, with its item tiers.

[okiness]

I think what sold me on this path is the feeling of 'new'. Let me tell you, at first I was throwing chairs at windows and crying and sobbing and many other girly primitive emotions. Then I sat down and wondered, does this mean I no longer can create, no longer make something that is my own? So I sat down for ten hours split up here and there and drew 'my' Hawke. Creating my PC was not gone, just not as open, and I was able to make Hawke my own. Not only this, but it was moving forward in a good interesting way that could be good. I'm still weary but so long as Hawke can be my own creation, I'm not opposed.

[errant_knight]

okiness wrote...

I think what sold me on this path is the feeling of 'new'. Let me tell you, at first I was throwing chairs at windows and crying and sobbing and many other girly primitive emotions. Then I sat down and wondered, does this mean I no longer can create, no longer make something that is my own? So I sat down for ten hours split up here and there and drew 'my' Hawke. Creating my PC was not gone, just not as open, and I was able to make Hawke my own. Not only this, but it was moving forward in a good interesting way that could be good. I'm still weary but so long as Hawke can be my own creation, I'm not opposed.

I'm not that worried about their being only one origin, and that being human. I assume there's a good reason for that beyond the financial. I'm also assuming that there's still going to be a character creator, so my hawke will be individual. I'm not sure all that won't go out the window when I hear the character voiced, and when he/she says things I didn't want/expect them to say. We'll see. The actors for the PC better be pretty damn good.

[okiness]

errant_knight wrote...

okiness wrote...

I think what sold me on this path is the feeling of 'new'. Let me tell you, at first I was throwing chairs at windows and crying and sobbing and many other girly primitive emotions. Then I sat down and wondered, does this mean I no longer can create, no longer make something that is my own? So I sat down for ten hours split up here and there and drew 'my' Hawke. Creating my PC was not gone, just not as open, and I was able to make Hawke my own. Not only this, but it was moving forward in a good interesting way that could be good. I'm still weary but so long as Hawke can be my own creation, I'm not opposed.

I'm not that worried about their being only one origin, and that being human. I assume there's a good reason for that beyond the financial. I'm also assuming that there's still going to be a character creator, so my hawke will be individual. I'm not sure all that won't go out the window when I hear the character voiced, and when he/she says things I didn't want/expect them to say. We'll see. The actors for the PC better be pretty damn good.

Oh I get you, trust me. There is always that fear. I liked it in Mass Effect but I didn't feel truly IN Mass Effect, but still, it was a good game. If they get a VA I totally hate, it won't work. But if she sounds evil the character I've thought up in my head might come through. Let's hope together, huh?

[Stanley Woo]

We already have a thread discussing the differences between DAO and DA2. Please take your discussion there. THank you.



End of line.