535 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord_Saulot]

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

Is it really that hard to believe that he might actually like the game he is working on and that he know a bit more about it than the rest of us?

[Hulk Hsieh]

Suron wrote...
that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

To me, the replayability of DA:O is twice.

There are only 2 choices in almost all major choices. Mage/Templar, Alistar/Loghain, Ash/Blood, Golem/No-Golem, Elves/Werewolves, Horrowmont/Bhelens, Ritual/Not....which means after 2 plays I deplete the choices I can make. The 6 origins don't make the replayability above this. I just went thru the 4 other origins in like 2 hours for the story's sake.

I think what will really impact the replayability is to add more choices in the major gameplay/plot points like the examples listed rather than just add some races/orgins that don't impact the long-term gameply choices.
 

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 25 juillet 2010 - 05:52 .

[andar91]

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

What suggests that replayability will be destroyed simply because we don't have multiple origins to explore?  You can still control your character's personality and that opens up a LOT of different paths through the game, especially since we have purportedly more ways to make choices within the story.  I don't think that picking my race ever had much to do with how I played the game; it was my characters' personality that defined them.  This may not be true for everyone, but I'm willing to bet that others feel the way I do.

PS: I'm not saying that race and things like that don't matter, just that I don't think their absence is going to destroy this game.

[Lyna357]

Kordaris wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Is it really that hard to believe that he might actually like the game he is working on and that he know a bit more about it than the rest of us?

Or that he is under contract from his employers and can't criticise the product he is working on, and which brings him money?

Tbh, probably both of you are right.

[andar91]

Lyna357 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Is it really that hard to believe that he might actually like the game he is working on and that he know a bit more about it than the rest of us?

Or that he is under contract from his employers and can't criticise the product he is working on, and which brings him money?

Tbh, probably both of you are right.

Personally, I don't think he'd bother saying much if he truly didn't like it. True, he probably can't say that something sucks even if it did, but wouldn't he just remain silent instead of lying?

And before anyone says, "Yeah, but he wants money so he's promoting the game so it sells well and he can fill his pockets," I really find it hard to believe that DA2 will sell at least enough copies to keep the company afloat (at bare minimum) just because of who the company is and what DA:O was.

Modifié par andar91, 25 juillet 2010 - 07:07 .

[Darth_Trethon]

There's nothing wrong with Ninja Gaiden's gameplay mechanics.....they work great so I say bring it on.....everyone will get a far better and more enjoyable game. What Ninja Gaiden suffered from was a poor story that was pointless.....the only reason to play it was the boobies and the violence which isn't much of a reason at all.



Now combine a great and compelling story presented in a very cinematic style with the gameplay mechanics of Ninja Gaiden and you may well have the recipe for the perfect game.

[Saibh]

Lyna357 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Is it really that hard to believe that he might actually like the game he is working on and that he know a bit more about it than the rest of us?

Or that he is under contract from his employers and can't criticise the product he is working on, and which brings him money?

Tbh, probably both of you are right.

How the hell are we jumping to conclusions like "Oh, David Gaider really hates the game he's making, and he's just saying all of this for money". Seriously. Where have we gotten that much information about this game to make this claim? Good lord.

[Jonathan Seagull]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I think what will really impact the replayability is to add more choices in the major gameplay/plot points like the examples listed rather than just add some races/orgins that don't impact the long-term gameply choices. 

Indeed.  I would much rather start out in one place and have the story become more and more different based on my choices, than start out in different places and have the story become more and more similar going forward.  I loved having different origins, but if cutting them allows for more branching paths in the main plot, I'm all for it.

andar91 wrote...

I don't think that picking my race ever had much to do with how I played the game; it was my characters' personality that defined them.

That's my perspective, as well.  I understand the appeal of different races, but when it comes down to it, the presence of dwarves and elves in Origins did not inherently allow you to play any more differing characters than a human does.  Except for "he's a dwarf" or "he's an elf."  Which is to say that any "type" you could play as those characters, you could also play as a human.  Some people like to tie personality to race, e.g "he acts this way because he's a dwarf," etc., and that's understandable.  But the game does not draw those lines; you could play him the same way as any other race.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 25 juillet 2010 - 07:28 .

[andar91]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I think what will really impact the replayability is to add more choices in the major gameplay/plot points like the examples listed rather than just add some races/orgins that don't impact the long-term gameply choices. 

Indeed.  I would much rather start out in one place and have the story become more and more different based on my choices, than start out in different places and have the story become more and more similar going forward.  I loved having different origins, but if cutting them allows for more branching paths in the main plot, I'm all for it.

Just what I was getting at.

[Addai]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

I think what will really impact the replayability is to add more choices in the major gameplay/plot points like the examples listed rather than just add some races/orgins that don't impact the long-term gameply choices. 

Indeed.  I would much rather start out in one place and have the story become more and more different based on my choices, than start out in different places and have the story become more and more similar going forward.  I loved having different origins, but if cutting them allows for more branching paths in the main plot, I'm all for it.

How is this going to be different in DA2?  Hawke always ends up Champion of Kirkwall, the world is always on the brink of war, etc.  Seems a similar set-up to DAO in that respect.

I would have been all for more varied gameplay, particularly in the Landsmeet and post-LM where everything was majorly stripped down and "streamlined" such that a Cousland received no different reception in the LM than an elf.  But all you're really saying is that DAO had this limitation and DA2 will have it, as well, so let's not worry if DA2 cuts out the variation in origin?  

[Brockololly]

I think the thing I want to know is how much of the game is left once we finish with the flashbacks and framed narrative of Varric and Cassandra? I'm thinking once things reach present time, it would be similar to the Landsmeet point in Origins. But then again, we don't even know if we'll play as Hawke in the present time or not, do we?

The potential problem is that if the narrator is too chatty, it kind of takes all the tension out of things- we already know we become the champion of Kirkwall and in each of the flashbacks the narrator might outline whats happening, so all we're doing is figuring out how we got to Point B from Point A- but the fact that we get to Point B is a foregone conclusion. Unless of course, once present time meets up with the flashbacks, the game throws in a big twist.

This whole framed narrative experiment is interesting and ambitious, for sure, but if its not carried out thoughtfully it could really cause the game to fall flat on its face.

Modifié par Brockololly, 25 juillet 2010 - 07:37 .

[Lyna357]

Saibh wrote...

Lyna357 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Is it really that hard to believe that he might actually like the game he is working on and that he know a bit more about it than the rest of us?

Or that he is under contract from his employers and can't criticise the product he is working on, and which brings him money?

Tbh, probably both of you are right.

How the hell are we jumping to conclusions like "Oh, David Gaider really hates the game he's making, and he's just saying all of this for money". Seriously. Where have we gotten that much information about this game to make this claim? Good lord.

With all due respect, I didn't see anyone mention that he hates the game he's making. It very possible that he is under contract not to say anything about the game he is working on and I think it is obvious that he likes it. And I think it is fairly safe to say that most people like money for their hard work. Sorry if you thought that was out of line.

[Jonathan Seagull]

Addai67 wrote...

How is this going to be different in DA2?  Hawke always ends up Champion of Kirkwall, the world is always on the brink of war, etc.  Seems a similar set-up to DAO in that respect.

That's not really what I was getting it, which is why I avoided saying (of Origins) that it ends up in the same place.  I said the story becomes more similar/different.  What I meant was that, after the origin intros, the majority of the gameplay experience (IMO) is pretty similar from one playthrough to another.

Whereas, perhaps in DA2 (and please understand, I have no idea if this will actually be the case, it's just a thought), there will be more points throughout the game where different players' paths will diverge based on the choices they make.  You're right that, it would seem, Hawke always ends up the Champion of Kirkwall, but there might be several distinct paths that can lead you there, in contrast to Origins, where I felt that all characters took basically the same path (just maybe in a different order).  Does that make sense?

And for the record, none of that is meant to be a knock on Origins.  I loved it and I think it has a great variety of choice.  My point was just that I would be okay with limiting choices at the start of the game if it meant more choices later in the game.

[Suron]

andar91 wrote...

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

What suggests that replayability will be destroyed simply because we don't have multiple origins to explore?  You can still control your character's personality and that opens up a LOT of different paths through the game, especially since we have purportedly more ways to make choices within the story.  I don't think that picking my race ever had much to do with how I played the game; it was my characters' personality that defined them.  This may not be true for everyone, but I'm willing to bet that others feel the way I do.

PS: I'm not saying that race and things like that don't matter, just that I don't think their absence is going to destroy this game.

I never said it would destroy it.  please don't put words in someone's mouth just to have a counter-point.  However it does, in fact, severely limit the replayability when compared to the original.  we're going from 3 races, 3 classes, 1-2 distinct origins...to 1 race, 3 classes, 1 origin (blight survivor fleeing lothering)....I assume you can do the math.

[andar91]

Suron wrote...

andar91 wrote...

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

What suggests that replayability will be destroyed simply because we don't have multiple origins to explore?  You can still control your character's personality and that opens up a LOT of different paths through the game, especially since we have purportedly more ways to make choices within the story.  I don't think that picking my race ever had much to do with how I played the game; it was my characters' personality that defined them.  This may not be true for everyone, but I'm willing to bet that others feel the way I do.

PS: I'm not saying that race and things like that don't matter, just that I don't think their absence is going to destroy this game.

I never said it would destroy it.  please don't put words in someone's mouth just to have a counter-point.  However it does, in fact, severely limit the replayability when compared to the original.  we're going from 3 races, 3 classes, 1-2 distinct origins...to 1 race, 3 classes, 1 origin (blight survivor fleeing lothering)....I assume you can do the math.

I wasn't trying to suggest you said it would destroy the game, I just think that that reflects what many seem to be expressing about this game's limitations.

My point was that replayability is bolstered more for me by my character's personality because, from what I could tell, the game was pretty much the same no matter what your origin.  It was your decisions that had ateh biggest impact, not whether you were an elf or a human or whatever.  At least in my opinion.

[Kenrae]

Brockololly wrote...

I think the thing I want to know is how much of the game is left once we finish with the flashbacks and framed narrative of Varric and Cassandra? I'm thinking once things reach present time, it would be similar to the Landsmeet point in Origins. But then again, we don't even know if we'll play as Hawke in the present time or not, do we?

The potential problem is that if the narrator is too chatty, it kind of takes all the tension out of things- we already know we become the champion of Kirkwall and in each of the flashbacks the narrator might outline whats happening, so all we're doing is figuring out how we got to Point B from Point A- but the fact that we get to Point B is a foregone conclusion. Unless of course, once present time meets up with the flashbacks, the game throws in a big twist.

This whole framed narrative experiment is interesting and ambitious, for sure, but if its not carried out thoughtfully it could really cause the game to fall flat on its face.

Obsidian did it great on Alpha Protocol.

On the replayability issue, The Witcher has a set protagonist, he's a witcher, he's male, and there's only one origin. And it's a very replayable game due to many different choices and branches and different ways to play the game.

[Zanderat]

Kordaris wrote...

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

QFT.
Be honest with us regarding the limitations in Dragon Age 2.

DG's arguements are usually specious and very condescending.  He is a master at blowing smoke at you.

[RevengeofNewton]

Kordaris wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Is it really that hard to believe that he might actually like the game he is working on and that he know a bit more about it than the rest of us?

Or that he is under contract from his employers and can't criticise the product he is working on, and which brings him money?

People generally like the game they're working on.

[Morroian]

Addai67 wrote...
How is this going to be different in DA2?  Hawke always ends up Champion of Kirkwall, the world is always on the brink of war, etc.  Seems a similar set-up to DAO in that respect.

My reading of whats been released so far is that there will be different paths to achieve that goal. I might be wrong but thats my interpretation.

[Narreneth]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
Well, the writer's bias is clear..

To be honest, he just seemed passionate, rather that than the 50 Olvia Munn's out there  batting there eye-lashes.

God, you're dense.  That's the what makes him biased.  He isn't taking the game and rating it as a game, he's taking it and rating it on how much like Origins it is.  Which is idiotic at best. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Brockololly wrote...

The potential problem is that if the narrator is too chatty, it kind of takes all the tension out of things- we already know we become the champion of Kirkwall and in each of the flashbacks the narrator might outline whats happening, so all we're doing is figuring out how we got to Point B from Point A- but the fact that we get to Point B is a foregone conclusion.

You're assuming the narrator is reliable.

[Brockololly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

The potential problem is that if the narrator is too chatty, it kind of takes all the tension out of things- we already know we become the champion of Kirkwall and in each of the flashbacks the narrator might outline whats happening, so all we're doing is figuring out how we got to Point B from Point A- but the fact that we get to Point B is a foregone conclusion.

You're assuming the narrator is reliable.

Well, then that makes it even worse potentially- we do X,Y and Z in the flashbacks only to get to present time and have things completely different? Might be a good twist in a movie, but I don't care for having the rug pulled out from under me in a player choice driven RPG.

[Deviija]

Narreneth wrote...

God, you're dense.  That's the what makes him biased.  He isn't taking the game and rating it as a game, he's taking it and rating it on how much like Origins it is.  Which is idiotic at best. 

Hey, now.  No need to insult others, please.

[Bryy_Miller]

Zanderat wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Suron wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
Certainly many people believe by now that choosing elf or dwarf and person of non-Hawk surname would benefit their gameplay experience.

People believe that cloaks and horses would benefit their gameplay experience, too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get them.

that's not even a fair comparison. Gaider.

removing other races as options to play through SEVERELY HAMPERS replayability....I put in over 520 HOURS in DA:O because of replaying using the other races/origins.  In DA2 we ONLY have Hawke...sure I can replay him as the different classes...but that was also in DA:O...DA:O added different races/origins to the table..which you've STRIPPED from DA2.

replayability be damned.

honestly, does EA give you some kind of kickback for your defending this game? it's obvious these 'reasons for the changes' has a large part in a shorter dev time allowed by EA..forcing you to simplify things to cut down on dev time and costs....they're already MILKING DA:O just like they do all their franchises.....I honestly refuse to believe you don't see that.

despite that however your "arguments" (points of defense) are usually at least well thought out and written as such....however this one, for lack of a better term, is stupid.  I'm not in ANY WAY saying you are stupid.  But this equating wanting horses/cloaks to different races -IS- a stupid analogy, and hence a stupid argument.  It's not even close to the same thing.

QFT.
Be honest with us regarding the limitations in Dragon Age 2.

DG's arguements are usually specious and very condescending.  He is a master at blowing smoke at you.

Please.