424 réponses à ce sujet

[iTomes]

"Righhht because you have any idea what your Shepard is about to say when you click those one word answers .



Anyway, the game Mass Effect 2 is a sort-of-RPG imo. This is because a key factor in RPG's is CHOICE. By this I do not just mean kill good cop/kill bad criminal, destroy base/keep base, I mean it in ALL aspects of the game. This includes having the ability to decide how to play your character, how to 'grow' your character (allocation of stats/talents), how to equip your character.



As Mass Effect does not effectively allow you to do many of these things, it does not make full RPG status.



On this: "If he's a nice guy or badass or whatever, you decide". Really? So you have never picked a response thinking you were going to be a nice guy, and it turns out you're just being an idiot? or a badass response and Shepard goes and delivers the line like an evil maniac?



I should note that despite this, I really enjoyed ME1/2, but I enjoyed it as the action-nearly-rpg it is (the great movie-like thing it had going was awesome) , and I would like to be able to continue the Dragon Age franchise as the call back to cRPG's it was meant to be, not some ME with swords."



im on your side in the ME2 sucked point xD. it still can be seen as an rpg, even tough i dont see it really as one. in ME you also have choices. the leak in ME to me was lacking character costumization. there were 2 shepards, one being paragon and one renegade, and a wuss in the middle. still you can see it as an rpg, and many do, even tough i disagree with them. BUT, and heres the point, DA2 is in no danger of becoming only similar to ME2 for it hasnt got a morality-thingie. but still, i propably misjudged you. i make the lack of sleep i had this night responsible, the next time my dog must go to the toilette he shall poop in hell!! sorry for that.

[B3taMaxxx]

....like a de facto RPG





It came seriously close to being an "action game".



If not for my escapades with Shepard in ME1, I don't think I would've been so heavily involved with ME2, though this does not detract from the incredible amount of polish........but to what end?



Nevertheless, being DA is a different team, I have faith they will try to differentiate themselves from the ME team.....i hope

[In Exile]

[quote]Damusique wrote...
Actually, yes, it's always as I expected but more elaborated.[/quote]

Sovereign: "I am Sovereign" 

Wheel choice: Impossible!

Shepard: "Sovereign isn't just some reaper ship Saren found, it's an actual reaper!" 

Oh sweet so now im playing one of those guys who points out obvious **** as it is happening...BUT DA KEWL VOICES R WORTH IT! 

[/quote]

Shepard was written this way precisely because people complain about how VO defines a character, so Shepard gets bland obvious statements and open-ended questions in as neutral as possible a tone, to be aim for being a blank canvass that players can project on. The only difference between Shepard and your average silent PC is that for whatever reason people can pretend the equally empty and pointless lines not said by the silent PC are somehow less obvious or absolutely devoid of anything of value.

The paraphrase was executed badly, no doubt, but the dialogue itself with VO is an entirely different issue.

[Ayleus]

Saibh said:



"Everyone, look! My very own personal troll! He's my first troll, you see.

Ooh, do tricks, do tricks! I'll feed ya, honey~ "



Well, if this doesn't prove the point of my post, then I don't know what does. Just....wow.



Also, this kid said



"So, uh, you didn't like DAO? Cause, you know, that one was made under the EA license. If you don't like DAO, and aren't going to like DA2, why are you here?"



Once again, your stupidity rears its ugly head in the form of mouthing off before you know what you're talking about. This will be the last time I speak to you Saibh, so, sorry for your loss because I know how much kids have fun trying to make mature ppl squirm in their seats by talking nonsense.

Let me set you straight, and then you're on your own. Dragon Age: Origins was started in 2005...maybe 04 or sooner. Just research it...or don't. who gives a fuk at this point. Bioware was acquired in 2007 by EA. The premise (PC platform focused, return to the roots) was already set in stone before the acquisition. ME2 and DA2 were started once EA had time to settle into bioware and influence (hell, it may have been more of a command...who knows) them to go for the gold...and not so much of the old school, hardcore quality they once possessed to a decent degree (they certainly weren't really hardcore....but it was close enough and with the high quality of everything else added in...most of their games shined). Hence we have a good game ME2, but it is not great like it should have been. It failed badly as a cRPG and turned into a console 3rd person shooter.....with dumbed down cRPG elements (btw, i thought the combat was hugh improvement...too bad everythig else got scraped and the story was not as impressive...wow, how sad). Now, DA2 falls into the same fate. I didn't want to believe it at first, but it just keeps getting more and more undeniable.



Ok folks, farewell. Enjoy your useless banter (useless because it will not accomplish anything at all). I've learned my lesson and I now know to quite.



PS: Saibh, I don't just have this attitude reserved just for you..... most of the people on here are kids no doubt and sadly, adults pay the price for kiddies on consoles complaining to EA's bioware and them listening because mommy and daddy will buy them the game and they will love it because they don't know anything better. Perhaps they just don't have much passion about gaming or just don't have any passion about anything...lacking experience...who knows. But the complaints against DA:O, while some may be valid, mostly were kids wanting ME2 style elements implemented so they could play it more easily and with such a short deadline before the release (one of many other bad signs), the PC will suffer because PC games take more time to develop because....GUESS WHAT, there's more to it (and i don't just mean compatibility with hardware type stuff either). Farewell. Feel free to say more stupid shyt....I won't be responding.

[Anarya]

Ayleus wrote...

[a wall of text]

Ad hominem attacks? Check
Repeatedly threatening to leave despite never actually leaving? Check.
Using "console" like a dirty word? Check

Saibh is not really the one acting childish here, Ayleus. You're getting pretty worked up over your personal entertainment.

[iTomes]

well, farewell Ayleus, cant really say that youll be missed. maybe someone should say a few last words, something like "everyone of us was touched by him in one way or another, mostly in a negative way". perhaps one of his friends. lets see, where are they. what?? none... well, thats too sad (not)....

[jonluke93]

Ayleus wrote...
lots of crap.

funny guy

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The paraphrase was executed badly, no doubt

Incredibly badly, as if they were doing it on purpose.

There's no other way I can imagine "What happened next?" becoming "I'll bet that didn't make him happy."

It's not even the right kind of sentence.  I chose a response that didn't make an assertion, and I got a line that did make an assertion.

Perhaps they could prevent this by having the paraphrases written by someone line by line without knowing what the NPCs response will be.  Since that's how the player chooses them, the paraphrase can't let itself be influenced by what role the subsequent line plays in the conversation.

[taine]

Ayleus wrote...

Once again, your stupidity rears its ugly head in the form of mouthing off before you know what you're talking about. This will be the last time I speak to you Saibh, so, sorry for your loss because I know how much kids have fun trying to make mature ppl squirm in their seats by talking nonsense. 
Let me set you straight, and then you're on your own. Dragon Age: Origins was started in 2005...maybe 04 or sooner. Just research it...or don't. who gives a fuk at this point. Bioware was acquired in 2007 by EA. The premise (PC platform focused, return to the roots) was already set in stone before the acquisition. ME2 and DA2 were started once EA had time to settle into bioware and influence (hell, it may have been more of a command...who knows) them to go for the gold...and not so much of the old school, hardcore quality they once possessed to a decent degree (they certainly weren't really hardcore....but it was close enough and with the high quality of everything else added in...most of their games shined). Hence we have a good game ME2, but it is not great like it should have been. It failed badly as a cRPG and turned into a console 3rd person shooter.....with dumbed down cRPG elements (btw, i thought the combat was hugh improvement...too bad everythig else got scraped and the story was not as impressive...wow, how sad). Now, DA2 falls into the same fate. I didn't want to believe it at first, but it just keeps getting more and more undeniable.

You know, before "Mature" people like you were whining about console gamers ruining everything, I was whining about the expanding PC market ruining the graphic adventure game. Except I was 15 at the time. 

...

Feel free to say more stupid shyt....I won't be responding.

This seems unlikely, but I hope you're telling the truth here.

[Brockololly]

As far as the iso view goes, I guess we'll see what they have in the PC version thus far when DA2 PC is playable at Gamescom next week...

[Saibh]

Kenrae wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Damusique wrote...

It's damn obvious EA did not have as much as a hand in DA:Origins as they now have in DA 2....

You know this, because...?

Maybe the fact that DAO was being developed some years before EA owned Bioware .

Read the rest of my post. If EA wanted something changed, they would have had it changed. They probably did have things changed.

It was made under the EA license. It was a game that they backed, they helped produce, and ultimately had a strong say in. They could have changed things if they so pleased. We can't know that they didn't.

Modifié par Saibh, 11 août 2010 - 11:46 .

[Dave of Canada]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Saibh wrote...

I've written you away from my life. You didn't keep me pleased, Dave. I need a real troll. Me and Ayleus will be good together. Just...forget we ever happened.

i'vge alreadgy started drrinking, thank ioyu verty muchas.'

that it, qi'm eswearing odff forum women.

i'vm sobering up now.  ijm still sdedaned though

no onwe knows whxat it's ilke to be the sand mna..r

to be the bad man..

behind bclue eyews.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The paraphrase was executed badly, no doubt

Incredibly badly, as if they were doing it on purpose.

There's no other way I can imagine "What happened next?" becoming "I'll bet that didn't make him happy."

It's not even the right kind of sentence.  I chose a response that didn't make an assertion, and I got a line that did make an assertion.

Perhaps they could prevent this by having the paraphrases written by someone line by line without knowing what the NPCs response will be.  Since that's how the player chooses them, the paraphrase can't let itself be influenced by what role the subsequent line plays in the conversation.

Yes! I agree completely.

The way I look at it (I did an academic run in ME and DA so to speak) the problem is that the writers very often write the PC line to get an NPC line off, because the NPC is their character and the PC to at least some degree (I qualify it since we disagree) is not, they write the NPCs to get all the 'zingers'.

DA did this all the time - the writers anchored on something the PC said to let the NPC get off a line. So the dialogue for Shepard is written this way. Fine, that's not a problem, rigtht? The problem is that then the paraphrase comes in that has a very tenous connection to the actual line.

All of that is to say, sadly, that I don't think they will ever do this because this is just not how it seems dialogue is written.

[TheMadCat]

Saibh wrote...

Kenrae wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Damusique wrote...

It's damn obvious EA did not have as much as a hand in DA:Origins as they now have in DA 2....

You know this, because...?

Maybe the fact that DAO was being developed some years before EA owned Bioware .

Read the rest of my post. If EA wanted something changed, they would have had it changed. They probably did have things changed.

It was made under the EA license. It was a game that they backed, they helped produce, and ultimately had a strong say in. They could have changed things if they so pleased. We can't know that they didn't.

To be fair, no they wouldn't have. There is a point of no return in development and they would have been closing in on it when EA bought them from EP. If they did want to really gut things they would have had to set development back quite a while as they'd have to go through and re-do whatever they felt needed to be re-done which ultimately would have cost them much more then they would have ever possibly made up. It was a BioWare title, it'd have some level of success so no reason to do anything drastic and spend a boat load of cash. They made the decision to go multi-plat, decided on a long term DLC plan, and that was more then likely the extent of their involvement in Origins.

[Saibh]

TheMadCat wrote...

To be fair, no they wouldn't have. There is a point of no return in development and they would have been closing in on it when EA bought them from EP. If they did want to really gut things they would have had to set development back quite a while as they'd have to go through and re-do whatever they felt needed to be re-done which ultimately would have cost them much more then they would have ever possibly made up. It was a BioWare title, it'd have some level of success so no reason to do anything drastic and spend a boat load of cash. They made the decision to go multi-plat, decided on a long term DLC plan, and that was more then likely the extent of their involvement in Origins.

I honestly don't want to argue this point too much because...I don't know. There's no way to know. They're not going to tell us, certainly.

I don't think I can win this argument in my favor, nor anyone win theirs. I guess I can just say "it's possible".

[Damusique]

In Exile wrote...

Shepard was written this way precisely because people complain about how VO defines a character, so Shepard gets bland obvious statements and open-ended questions in as neutral as possible a tone, to be aim for being a blank canvass that players can project on. The only difference between Shepard and your average silent PC is that for whatever reason people can pretend the equally empty and pointless lines not said by the silent PC are somehow less obvious or absolutely devoid of anything of value.

The paraphrase was executed badly, no doubt, but the dialogue itself with VO is an entirely different issue.

Yeah I agree that a major problem with ME dialogue was the paraphrasing, as it took away role-playing. I would be content with a voiced character if they would still let me see what my character says so I can pick the one that fits the role I'm playing, rather than having to adapt my role to what the paraphrase actually means.

A simple solution that I've seen on these forums is to allow the player to right click the paraphrased version on the wheel and then having the full text of what your character will say on the screen, therefore allowing for a better role-playing experience.

[TheMadCat]

Saibh wrote...


I honestly don't want to argue this point too much because...I don't know. There's no way to know. They're not going to tell us, certainly.

I don't think I can win this argument in my favor, nor anyone win theirs. I guess I can just say "it's possible".

Well that was kind of the point of my post, dissuade you from believing either to be the truth. We really don't know what EA's hand in Origins was aside from the multi-plat switch and the long term DLC financing.

[Haexpane]

There's a new Shepard in town, the sheep will follow.

[Krudus]

i can see no real logical reason for removing the isometric camera from the "spiritual successor" of the baldurs gate series. first they state that the pc version will be cut from the same cloth as the first, which was very heavy on strategy, and then they remove perhaps the most useful and iconic thing about these types of games. I hope that im wrong, but it looks like they are simply dumbing down the experience for the console, and couldnt be bothered to change it on pc.

[Haexpane]

They said it had to do w/ rendering textures more than anything else. They chopped it for the graphics, not for the ConsoleTards like us.



Believe it or not, us ConsoleTards actually own PCs too, and just because we are ConsoleTarded does not mean we haven't played, AND LOVED LIKE A PUPPY Baldur's Gate 2

[Bowmangr]

Unbelievably bad news!!! I just read about it today. Count me in as one of those that believe that consoles pretty much destroyed any good "thinking man's" game.

Now all that I can see is dumbed down versions of game genres so that they can be bought and played by casual gamers sitting on their couch with a controller.



What a disappointment BioWare! Supporting dumb console versions instead of the crowd that supported you all these years.



If Dragon Age II has no tactical view there is no reason to buy this game. If I wanted to play button mashing action game I'd have bought a console and much better action games than what Dragon Age II will be.



I also blame BioWare for dumbing down Mass Effect 2 in order to sell console copies. This is really bad.



Let's hope that they will come to their senses and add the tactical view back to the game otherwise I'm not buying. It's that simple.



I'll stick to PC exclusives from now on I guess. The witcher 2 is my only hope now.

[wowpwnslol]

The reason for no isometric view is because of the new gen console gamers who believe that if it's not first/third person, then it's not immersive or outdated and therefore sucks. Here is an interesting quote I found by one of the Diablo 3 developers in regards to isometric view:

“Camera is not technology,” says Wilson, clearly
somewhat frustrated. “People associate the camera with isometric and
say: ‘Oh, why didn’t you update the tech?’ Well, we did update the tech.
The camera has nothing to do with tech, the camera is all about
gameplay. Isometric gameplay is very different from FPS or
over-the-shoulder thirdperson – which is pretty much what the entire
industry is moving towards. But then some of the biggest hits of the
last year were Guitar Hero and Rock Band, and those were not high-tech
games. Gameplay is what matters; it’s what’s always mattered to us.”

I am happy at least some developers still "get it", unlike many companies today. Bioware sold out to console market, unfortunately.

Too many games turned into epic failures because there was no isometric view. I am glad Blizzard is keeping D3 and SC2 away from console's dirty hands, so at least those titles won't be ruined.

Modifié par wowpwnslol, 23 août 2010 - 10:29 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Er, there was a console version of Dragon Age Origins you know? It was unable to have the isometric view due to technical limitations, did Bioware remove it from the pc version because they are trying to pander to one group or the other? No.



At least wait until you see what the new tactical camera looks like before you decry it is the end of all gaming (except Blizzard? Really?). A detachable camera if correctly implemented could be amazing for a tactical game like Dragon Age.



Incidentally wowpwnslol (great name, very classy) your quote from the developers that 'get it' happens to mention two very popular console games in regards to 'it's gameplay that matters'. If it's gameplay that matters why don't you wait and actually see some gameplay before making wild asumptions?



@Bowmangr: How does changing tactical view make it a button mashing game? I can understand some BG purists disliking the decision to change the camera, but if you read anything about the game you would realise the gameplay itself is almost identical to Origins.