191 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

I hope that there will be less level scaling.

DA2 will be told in flashback. So, it will be more storydriven than DA:O and there will be less sandbox/exploration elements. So DA2 will need less level scaling and so maybe combat will be more interesting and "designed", on the level of Leliana's Song just to make an example.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:07 .

[Zhijn]

soteria wrote...

There's a downside to having spell effects disappear during cutscenes. That means the already-dumb "ambushed by conversation" scenarios will be even dumber. Had blood magic, rock armor, miasma, and combat magic active to prep for an ambush? Hah! Now all your characters are tightly bunched and your sustains have been deactivated.

Ever thought maybe its just the effects that are gone in a conversation, but the skill is still active?

[Rzepik2]

FedericoV wrote...

I hope that there will be less level scaling.

DA2 will be told in flashback. So, it will be more storydriven than DA:O and there will be less sandbox/exploration elements. So DA2 will need less level scaling and so maybe combat will be more interesting and "designed", on the level of Leliana's Song just to make an example.

Not every non-linear cRPG has level scaling, you know?

Less level scaling? Yes.
Less freedom? HELL NO!

Modifié par Rzepik2, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:15 .

[FedericoV]

Rzepik2 wrote...

Less level scaling? Yes.
Less freedom? HELL NO!

I'm not a great fan of sandbox games and exploration. Can't play Oblivion or other game on the like. I play Bioware games mostly because they are more storydriven.

I think that in storydriven games like DA:O, exploration do not improve the narrative and causes more problems in terms of gameplay and story than real gaming options.

Imho the best example of good balance between exploration and story was Baldur's Gate (the original). Baldur's Gate II was great and all... but you know, sometimes it feels even bigger than what it needed to be for me.

I do understand that for many players exploration is a must... and I know that level scaling it's not a necessity for a non linear RPGs... but that's the reason why Bioware devs have allways justified level scaling in DA:O, not me (I mean they have stated many times that level scaling was there because of the sandbox element in the game).

But then my answer is: how do you improve exploration on the scale of DA:O in a game that have a framed structure (as far as we know at least) and that it's told from a narrator in flashbacks?

It seems to me that the freedom and the RPG elements of DA2 will be more focused on how you choose to shape Hawke and who you want him to be, opening different story branches than exploring the world to find allies like DA:O.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:31 .

[soteria]

Rzepik2 wrote...

Old spells (& abilities) system.
Replace cooldown with the "spells per encounter". Add new spells.

Maybe this will fix strategic wannabe combat.

How would "spells per encounter" make it more strategic?

[HighMoon]

Kordaris wrote...

I hope there won't be as much romance. If they would give an option in game settings to turn it off, it would be great.

"Turn it off", lol... If you don't want romance, then don't romance! Duh... It's not a mandatory part of any Bioware game.

[Elanareon]

Behindyounow wrote...

Random encounters that are just combat, need to die.

This is a no... Random encounters are fun... Adds to the realism of the game, realism of being in a fantasy adventure world that is... Just not too much and not scripted encounters

[Rzepik2]

FedericoV wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

Less level scaling? Yes.
Less freedom? HELL NO!

I'm not a great fan of sandbox games and exploration. Can't play Oblivion or other game on the like. I play Bioware games mostly because they are more storydriven.

I think that in storydriven games like DA:O, exploration do not improve the narrative and causes more problems in terms of gameplay and story than real gaming options.

Imho the best example of good balance between exploration and story was Baldur's Gate (the original). Baldur's Gate II was great and all... but you know, sometimes it feels even bigger than what it needed to be for me.

I do understand that for many players exploration is a must... but my answer is: how do you improve exploration on the scale of DA:O in a game that have a framed structure (as far as we know at least) and that it's told from a narrator in flashbacks?

It seems to me that the freedom and the RPG elements of DA2 will be more focused on how you choose to shape Hawke and who you want him to be, opening different story branches than exploring the world to find allies like DA:O.

I agree about balance in Baldur's Gate... except that for me BG1 seems to be the bigger one in terms of exploration.
To be honest, I'm not naive enough to think that any DA game will contain some free exploring. But I would love to see at least illusion of it... hmm... something like the Brecilian forest in DA:O.

[Elanareon]

FedericoV wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

Less level scaling? Yes.
Less freedom? HELL NO!

I'm not a great fan of sandbox games and exploration. Can't play Oblivion or other game on the like. I play Bioware games mostly because they are more storydriven.

I think that in storydriven games like DA:O, exploration do not improve the narrative and causes more problems in terms of gameplay and story than real gaming options.

Imho the best example of good balance between exploration and story was Baldur's Gate (the original). Baldur's Gate II was great and all... but you know, sometimes it feels even bigger than what it needed to be for me.

I do understand that for many players exploration is a must... and I know that level scaling it's not a necessity for a non linear RPGs... but that's the reason why Bioware devs have allways justified level scaling in DA:O, not me (I mean they have stated many times that level scaling was there because of the sandbox element in the game).

But then my answer is: how do you improve exploration on the scale of DA:O in a game that have a framed structure (as far as we know at least) and that it's told from a narrator in flashbacks?

It seems to me that the freedom and the RPG elements of DA2 will be more focused on how you choose to shape Hawke and who you want him to be, opening different story branches than exploring the world to find allies like DA:O.

Bioware once made a kinda sandbox game that is story-driven... Baldur's Gate, and that was one hell of a game! Why can't they do that anymore? Or maybe just the same as BG2?

[FedericoV]

Rzepik2 wrote...

I agree about balance in Baldur's Gate... except that for me BG1 seems to be the bigger one in terms of exploration.
To be honest, I'm not naive enough to think that any DA game will contain some free exploring. But I would love to see at least illusion of it... hmm... something like the Brecilian forest in DA:O.

Yep, I think that you're right. A group of very skilled writers is working on DA2 and maybe they will try to preserve the illusion of free adventuring. At the end even in DA:O there was more the illusion of free exploration than the reality of it. But the result was level scaling nonetheless. So, I do agree with you: maybe they will find a way to preserve the illusion of exploration even with a framed narrative structure, but I really_really_really hope that there won't be much level scaling or that it will work better than DA:O, since it was one of the few things that ruined the DA:O's experience for me. 

In Leliana's Song they showed that DA's combat and gameplay can be very interesting, hard and challeging while still intuitive and simple without level scaling and with fights designed in detail. So, I hope that in DA2 we will se the same approach in designing combat.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 11:55 .

[Rzepik2]

soteria wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

Old spells (& abilities) system.
Replace cooldown with the "spells per encounter". Add new spells.

Maybe this will fix strategic wannabe combat.

How would "spells per encounter" make it more strategic?

Because in DA:O every encounter is just an endless repetition of a short skills/spells combination. Especially bosses.
Figting a revenant/dragon/Uldred
spell A> spell B> spell C> skill A
spell A> spell B> spell C> skill A
spell A> spell B> spell C> skill A...
Repeat whole 2 minutes. Oh how strategic. Oh how fun.

Spells per encounter are just a suggestion, a compromise between old D&D system and cooldown.

[zazei]

Far less out drawn battles with a horde of weak enemies I would say. I get that they where going for a feel where we got to fight our way through a army but for me it didn't work at all. Fighting through the dark spawn lines in the deap roads after meeting the legion of the dead, the Carta base and first area in the final city seige was just painful for me to play. It wasn't hard or challanging at all just dull and boring with the same encounter of enemies being killed over and over again.



I would prefer less "trash" so to speak and more enemies that need some planning or different tactics to handle.

[FedericoV]

Elanareon wrote...


Bioware once made a kinda sandbox game that is story-driven... Baldur's Gate, and that was one hell of a game! Why can't they do that anymore? Or maybe just the same as BG2?

Man, I loved BG I (and II) and I would give blood to see such a game another time. They are my favourite RPGs with Arcanuum. But, in terms of pure exploration and freedom, BG I was less open than DA:O if memory serves me well.

DA:O is the best spiritual successor to BG that Bioware could make if we approach the argument with realism... the differences between the two (in term of combat) were mostly due to the scope of level scaling, the diversity of eoncounters and to the gameplay system (D&D is far from perfect but it helps to have 20 years of testing and fine tuning at your back...).

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:05 .

[Rzepik2]

FedericoV wrote...

Elanareon wrote...


Bioware once made a kinda sandbox game that is story-driven... Baldur's Gate, and that was one hell of a game! Why can't they do that anymore? Or maybe just the same as BG2?

Man, I loved BG I (and II) and I would give blood to see such a game another time. They are my favourite RPGs with Arcanuum. But, in terms of pure exploration and freedom, BG I was less open than DA:O if memory serves me well.

DA:O is the best spiritual successor to BG that Bioware could make if we approach the argument with realism... the differences between the two (in term of combat) were mostly due to the scope of level scaling, the diversity of eoncounters and to the gameplay system (D&D is far from perfect but it helps to have 20 years of testing and fine tuning at your back...).

Whoa! BG I is the actually the only Bioware game focused on exploration -_o DA:O can't be even compared in terms of free adventuring.
BG II is less open, there's no whole map to explore, only certain locations. But still there's a lot of freedom. First half of the game is like "here's a big city full of well-developed side quests, do whatever you want"

Modifié par Rzepik2, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:14 .

[Rzepik2]

Double post.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:15 .

[soteria]

Rzepik2 wrote...

soteria wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

Old spells (& abilities) system.
Replace cooldown with the "spells per encounter". Add new spells.

Maybe this will fix strategic wannabe combat.

How would "spells per encounter" make it more strategic?

Because in DA:O every encounter is just an endless repetition of a short skills/spells combination. Especially bosses.
Figting a revenant/dragon/Uldred
spell A> spell B> spell C> skill A
spell A> spell B> spell C> skill A
spell A> spell B> spell C> skill A...
Repeat whole 2 minutes. Oh how strategic. Oh how fun.

Spells per encounter are just a suggestion, a compromise between old D&D system and cooldown.

Hmm.  I don't think that fixes the problem, though.  Say you're fighting Uldred.  In the current system I would just use single-target damage spells whenever they're off cooldown and mana permits, with staff attacks in between.  In a spells-per-encounter system, I would just blow all my single-target spells and then use staff attacks for the rest of the fight.  Meanwhile, in short fights, I could just cast arcane bolt three or four times in a row to kill an enemy.  That just doesn't seem more strategic.  Restricting spell uses like that would make longer fights less fun, imo.

I think the problem you're seeing is with encounter design, not spells.  For all its flaws, they did well in designing bosses in Awakening.  The lightning dragon, pride demon, Mother, and other bosses were all much more interesting fights than most of what we had in Origins.

[Aratham Darksight]

FedericoV wrote...

Elanareon wrote...


Bioware once made a kinda sandbox game that is story-driven... Baldur's Gate, and that was one hell of a game! Why can't they do that anymore? Or maybe just the same as BG2?

Man, I loved BG I (and II) and I would give blood to see such a game another time. They are my favourite RPGs with Arcanuum. But, in terms of pure exploration and freedom, BG I was less open than DA:O if memory serves me well.

Actually, it was quite the opposite. The critical path for BG1 was barely longer than two of the main quests in Origins combined. The rest was all optional content, although a lot of it didn't rise above the job board level of quality.

[FedericoV]

Rzepik2 wrote...

Whoa! BG I is the actually the only Bioware game focused on exploration -_o DA:O can't be even compared in terms of free adventuring.
BG II is less open, there's no whole map to explore, only certain locations. But still there's a lot of freedom. First half of the game is like "here's a big city full of well-developed side quests, do whatever you want"

Yep, you're right if we talk about the philosophy of the game and the design of the areas you could explore in BG I. BG I was not a sandbox game, since some areas could only be visited in certain chapters of the game, but there was a lot of free adventuring and it was less story driven than DA:O. I was just trying to say that after the initial passage of origins/joining/ostagar/lothering, you could visit most part of the map in DA:O while in BG I it wasn't so. I hope that you understand what I'm trying to say. I agree with you mostly.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:44 .

[TaHol]

I have only one thing to say from DA2: I really hope they finally get people with some taste to do the character - and costume-designing. But after ME2, I'm afraid it is too much to hope for.



Armors: Afwul. Mage gear: Afwul. Women: Godawful. Noble clothes: Godawful.



I want to find the person who did those monstrosities and slap him/her silly.

[Dynamomark]

I actually hope there would be more level scaling or at least some adequate substitute to it. At the beginning, the game is much harder. However, when you get to mid teen levels, you can pretty much go on autopilot during most combats, even on nightmare. That's despite the fact that there's level scaling.



It becomes pointless to use certain talents at higher levels because you could do just fine without them. Level scaling would make it even more pointless. The hell do I care that crippling shot (that takes forever to aim) will reduce the attack and defense of a genlock if I can take out that genlock by firing two arrows in that same amount of time.



I love the thrill of fighting revnants at level 8. The same is a walk in the park when you fight them at say level 14. Feeling superior is fun for a while, but it gets old very quickly in the game as lengthy as Dragon Age.

[Aigyl]

I'm hoping for less dungeon crawls. Places like the Sacred Ashes temple and the Deep Roads were great atmospherically but really got tedious with the endless combat, especially when you were just repeating the same tactics over and over again in most of the battles.

[Chuvvy]

paulsmyname wrote...

Another one which made pefect nonsense was a random encounter where you start in the middle of somewhere, surrounded by wolves. Fine, I don't mind being ambushed and outwitted by wolves. What I do mind is that the wolves have surrounded me with traps (yes, the kind of traps used to capture wolves), and that they all were carrying lyirum potions. I don't know where the story is going with lyrium-infused, magic wielding, trap-setting wolves, but there must be a very dark and sinister conspiracy going on somewhere.

That was an early encounter clearly put out to give you lots of EXP. And signs said the traps were laid out for wolves.

[Rzepik2]

Aigyl wrote...

I'm hoping for less dungeon crawls. Places like the Sacred Ashes temple and the Deep Roads were great atmospherically but really got tedious with the endless combat, especially when you were just repeating the same tactics over and over again in most of the battles.

Yup. Fade is also horrible.

There's also some short, but unnecessary crawls. For example dwarf commoner origin should have ended after arena. Everything after was a bit far-fetched. If they wanted to extend gameplay, why not add more gangsta dwarf quests?

Modifié par Rzepik2, 26 juillet 2010 - 02:32 .